Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

BUILDING AND CIVIL ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES

11.5 a.m.

Mr. John Page: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have, five minutes ago, been informed by the First Secretary of State's office that the right hon. Lady is to publish in the London Gazette tonight an Order bringing about a standstill and a reduction in regard to the wage claim of building workers.
When, yesterday, we discussed next week's business my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) and I asked that before such a step was taken a statement should be made, and on 11th November we had from the Leader of the House the very strongest moral undertaking that a debate would be allowed before such a standstill was directed.
I understand that it is impossible for me today to seek to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9, but I beg to give notice that I shall move the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment thereafter for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which should have urgent attention, namely—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The matter of which the hon. Member complains is a point, not for the Chair, but for himself and the Minister. He is right in saying that he cannot ask for an S.O.9 on a Friday, nor can he ask on a Friday for an S.O.9 on a Monday. If the hon. Member seeks an S.O.9, he must do so when an application for an S.O.9 is in order.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the presence of the Leader of the House this morning, and of his own statement of 11th November, which has already been recalled, may I ask whether we are to have a statement from him?

The Lord President of the Council and the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): In view of what has been said, Mr. Speaker, I will communicate immediately with my right hon. Friend. I have been attending a meeting and was unaware of this situation. I will certainly make representations to my right hon. Friend now.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you received any request or indication from the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity that she might make a statement in the House, considering that the Chancellor of the Exchequer recently employed this means of making a statement on a Friday, even at a late hour?

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is rather an otiose question. If I had received any such information, the House would have been made aware of it.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Further to that point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I am addressed on any points of order, I would remind the House that this is Private Members' day. I hope that we can get to their Bills in good time.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it be in order for the right hon. Lady to make an application to you today, and for you to accede to that application when it is made, so that a statement could be made at 4 o'clock?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should know that if a Minister wants to make a statement, a Minister can make a statement.

Orders of the Day — PONIES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

11.8 a.m

Sir Robert Cary: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This Bill is designed, as the Preamble states, to
Improve the conditions under which ponies are exported; to prohibit or restrict the export of certain ponies; and for purposes connected therewith.
My words today must be devoted, in the main, to the Clauses, which seek to give to a small but dearly-loved section of animals in our midst a higher degree of the protection which, by chance and not by design, they have been denied in earlier legislation.
Before coming to the Clauses, however, I think that the House will expect from me my credentials for dealing with the matter, and my reasons for selecting this subject following my success in the Ballot.
In boyhood, and later, during the First World War and for some years afterwards as a Regular soldier, my life was dominated by horses and ponies. Among all those who shared my life, those upon which, I think, my greatest affection was centred were four blue roan ponies and four strawberry roan ponies in my care. I dread to think that the ultimate fate of those darling ponies might have been that of some of the ponies which are my concern today.
After that period in my life, and a suitable interval of candidature, I was elected to the House of Commons for a constituency one half of which was a mining area concerned with the Manchester collieries of Swinton and Pendlebury. Although, perhaps, the miners did not, politically, think that I was the best Member of Parliament, at least out of that experience I shared with them an undying affection for the pit pony. I have had much correspondence since the announcement of my Bill from people concerned with pit ponies, and I wish to say now that there is no continuing interest in the Bill vis-à-vis the pit pony.

I understand from Lord Robens, Chairman of the National Coal Board—he knows that I shall say this—that by the end of 1970 there will not be a pit pony working underground.
When I first came to the problem of the pit pony 35 years ago, there were about 70,000 pit ponies working underground in our land. I feel that it would be right—I am, perhaps, expressing the view of the whole House here—to secure that, when the day of the pit pony is done, there shall be erected somewhere in our land a national shrine or memorial in token of the immense contribution made through generations of time by the pit pony to the wealth and work of the British people.
In 1952, I became concerned about the conditions of slaughter and export of horses. Some right hon. and hon. Members may recall the great campaign waged at that time by the Manchester Guardian, as the paper was called then. I see in his place the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) who, with me, participated in the activities in the House at that time. In 1952, I put down Questions to the then Prime Minister. Sir Winston Churchill, arising out of the recommendation of the Rosebery Committee that responsibility for matters of slaughter and export be placed under one Minister. It is interesting to note that, when acceding to that request, the Prime Minister answered my Question in these words:
Everyone will, I am sure, agree that the fullest safeguards should be provided to avoid any cruelty in the transport of horses for slaughter and in the slaughter houses and knackers yards.
That sentiment applies equally today to the ponies about which I am here concerned.
In parenthesis, I remind the House that that occasion gave Sir Winston opportunity to make the immortal remark which will live in the minds of historians for many years:
I have always considered that the substitution of the internal combustion engine for the horse marked a very gloomy milestone in the progress of mankind."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th June, 1952; Vol. 502, c. 2036–7.]
Afterwards, behind the Chair, Sir Winston said to me, "I hope that you are pleased with my reply. I understand that the poor darlings are tied up for hours on end, without even a drink", to which


I responded, "Prime Minister, I wish it were hours. I am sorry to tell you that sometimes it is days without a drink and, perhaps, without fodder".
Out of that exchange with the Prime Minister came the setting up of the Northumberland Committee. I had the privilege of seconding the Motion for a Second Reading of the Bill in 1954, a Private Member's Bill, presented by Mr. Arthur Moyle, then the Member for Old-bury and Halesowen, and now Lord Moyle. That was the Slaughter of Animals Bill of 1954.
I acknowledge the work which has been done in the past on the objects of the present Bill by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball)—I had the privilege of serving here 35 years ago with his distinguished father—who opened a short debate a little while ago, beginning at about a quarter past three in Private Members' time, though, unfortunately, his effort at that time was talked out. Also, I acknowledge the splendid work done by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in another place, who carried this Bill through all its stages in the other place during last Session. In preparing for the present Bill, I have enjoyed both the advice and support of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin.
In substance, this is Lord Silkin's Bill which I am now putting to the House of Commons. I shall not give the House an account of the details of the trade in ponies which have been put before me by the many societies concerned with the problem, or of the conditions of sale, transport, shipment, stabling, feeding and watering, or of the gaps in supervision, maintenance, inspection and horse mastership which can strike so cruelly at ponies which go for export.
Neither shall I invite the House to consider what control might have been provided, if it were possible, over the treatment of the pony in the foreign field. What I invite the House to do is to ensure that any pony, while it is within British sovereignty, shall enjoy certain conditions of welfare and maintenance as are within our power and our country's traditions. That is my object.
I imagine that no one will quarrel with the sentiments which I have expressed so far. Before turning to the merits or

otherwise of the Bill in detail, however, I shall say a little about its background. In this country we enjoy a splendid export trade, as we do with so much of our livestock, in the stud pony, the registered pony, the riding pony, the high-back. This trade is expanding, and it is one of our economic assets within the overall livestock world. Naturally, it will be the wish of all hon. Members, as it is permanently the wish of the Ministry of Agriculture, to preserve that precious heritage. Therefore, basically, my aim within the ambit of the Bill is to sustain that wonderful work as a contribution to our export trade.
However, in recent years there has grown up a rather sleazy smear in the wake of that wonderful export trade in the export of what are loosely described as scrub ponies drawn from moorland and fell, from activities in purely domestic circumstances, in the down-grading of many young ponies ridden by children in clubs, and so on, animals, that is, which fall into the hands of dealers who trail through our own markets making a few pounds profit and which ultimately, in the most wretched conditions, find their way to export ports, to go where?—to the Continent where they are served at the tables of those who care to buy horse and pony meat.
It almost seems to me to be a falsity to present, as it must be presented abroad, pony meat as if it were a special delicacy, like veal or baby lamb. There are, however, profitable elements and profit margins in this trade and in the buying of supplies cheaply and in the cheapest market and getting them to the slaughterhouses on the other side of the water from this land, handsome profits can probably be made.
I do not want this poison, which is growing and expanding, to poison the world, as I feel that in time it could, of this wonderful superior export trade which we have in the high-bred stud pony and the riding pony. I am trying to separate two worlds. Basically, I have an economic objective to preserve and expand something that is good, and I want to take away the cancer which is festering in its wake. Therefore, I turn to the Bill.

Mr. Paul Hawkins: Would my hon. Friend say


whether he has had consultations about the Bill with the National Pony Society, whose chairman is in my constituency and has written to me saying that no consultation has taken place concerning the Bill and that he is surprised at its being brought forward? It represents all the pony breeds in the country and—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Interventions should be brief.

Sir R. Cary: I am sorry that I cannot reply in full to my hon. Friend. He has made a valid point, of which I am aware. My hon. Friend made me aware of it yesterday. He would, I am sure, be the first to appreciate that in seeking to present the Bill, I drew eighth place in the Ballot. Eight Fridays were available and I had the eighth pick. I did not, in fact, have a choice. There was one place left, on Friday, 13th December. The date I had in mind was 28th February.
I intended to use the Recess to do all the necessary reconnaissances that I should do in presenting a Bill like this. Had that programme been followed, I would have had ample opportunity to go to the individual named by my hon. Friend, and I hope that through this debate my hon. Friend will kindly pass him my apologies that he has not personally been consulted by me.
The Bill contains six Clauses. The important Clauses are Clauses 1, 2 and 3. Clauses 4, 5 and 6 are formalities of enforcement, interpretation and Short Title.
I describe Clause 1 as a barrier Clause in that it is linked to the Diseases of Animals Act, 1950, which it amends, and it states:
(a) after subsection (4) of section 37 thereof (which relates to restrictions on the export of horses) there shall be inserted the following subsection:—
'(4A) In the case of a pony the conditions to be complied with shall include conditions that in the opinion of the inspector the pony is fit for breeding or riding purposes and properly described in any certificate, licence or other document relating to the export of the pony and that the pony is of not less value than £100, or, in the case of a pony not exceeding 12 hands in height, £70, or such other value as may be prescribed by the Minister for the purpose of this subsection.'".
As the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will appreciate, that places a discretionary

power upon the Minister in operating the Clause.
I call this a barrier Clause because, at the £100 and £70 named in this amendment, the dealer whom I want to knock out of this industry will not be able to jump that money fence. It is a barrier for him. To the good, healthy, splendid stud pony export trade, however, it will be of no consequence. Some of the ponies which are exported are extremely valuable livestock and they change hands for hundreds of guineas, up to as much as 1,000 guineas. That is why I describe Clause 1 as a barrier Clause.
Clause 2 (Provision for exporting ponies) and Clause 3 (Further restrictions on export of certain ponies) I describe as disciplinary Clauses. I shall not weary the House by relating all my experiences—and they have been many over the years—of distress which I have witnessed. Perhaps I can best put the matter before the House in the terms of a document which has been sent to me by an extremely well known protection society and from which I might read two paragraphs. This would concern Clauses 2 and 3, the disciplinary Clauses.
The letter states:
You will know that so many people in the horse world simply have no idea what happens at night on deserted docksides. inside long distance transports overcrowded with unweaned foals or terrified ponies brought straight off the moors or mountains to sales such as Chagford, Cwan Owen, Llanafan-Fawr or Beaulieu Road, and then sent for export a week or so later. It is no wonder that these animals are seen by us in a pitiable condition after their journeys to the Continent and later at Continental markets.
In spite of top level asserts repeated ad nauseam that the Ministry's present regulations are strictly enforced, the eye-witness evidence of my colleagues and myself does not bear this out at all. We have now made a great many checks at exit ports and have frequently travelled on boats with exported ponies, in the hope of satisfying ourselves that regulations are properly enforced, only to be disappointed practically every time. Understandably our complaints are vehemently denied by those responsible; their living depends on their jobs, and it must be infuriating when outsiders draw attention to irregularities. Nevertheless, we have to speak out on behalf of the animals, who cannot themselves claim the rights to which they are entitled by law.
"Entitled in law"—this is what I want to establish through the agency of the Bill. I want to afford a protection to the weak, the lame and the sick in the world of the pony, dragged by


dealers from market to market in our own country, often to find their way over our frontiers elsewhere to make a greedy and shabby profit out of a trade of which I feel heartily ashamed.
I shall not take the House through many things that I would like to name, but before I conclude I would like to express the hope that a number of my right hon and hon. Friends on this side of the House might participate in the debate, as well as a number of hon. Members from the benches opposite, because the Bill has been prepared by me on an all-party basis.
In preparation for the Bill, I tried extremely hard not to become emotionally involved in the grievous aspects of this trade. Unless one has water in one's veins, to examine eye-witness accounts of some of the things which do happen makes one restless even to sleeplessness, which I have suffered during these last few weeks. These accounts come not only from our own sources, but can be read in the columns of the best newspapers not only in this country, but abroad. Men and women do not lie about these matters just for the fun of the thing. One cannot.
It would be a contradiction of the great humane traditions of this House and which are threaded through the patterns of our society and the source of which is to be found in the Christian message of compassion: compassion not only for the lonely and the sick and for the Cathy who never comes home, but also for the ill-treated dog which licks one's hands in its last hours; perhaps compassion for creation itself, particularly when one has witnessed what has happened by the use through mankind's activities of myxomatosis, or the clumsy use of sprays and insecticides.
We here have a duty, and if my Bill fails, then the dark, seamy side which has grown up in the export of ponies will continue to fester unchecked, and in those circumstances the only beneficiaries will be those who have made, who are making, and who will continue to make shabby and grubby profits out of this trade. Alternatively—I say this to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, whom everybody in the House respects for his great knowledge of agriculture, and for his

kindliness, and his accessibility to the House—if my Bill is to succeed, perhaps the Government may help at its final stages to make that possible. I think that it may be worth their while to make it possible.
I like to think of my effort today as it was thought of by the editor of the Daily Mail at the time when, from behind your Chair, Mr. Speaker, we handed in our Private Members' Bills for First Reading. The editor of the Daily Mail printed this in his leader about Private Members' Bills:
To the public at large these things may seem small beer, and indeed their scope is limited by the convention that they must not draw on taxpayers' money. In the biggest things the voice of the ordinary back bencher is too often drowned by the crack of the party Whips, but individual M.P.s still have a chance to leave British life a little better than they found it. It is good to see them taking their chances.
This Bill is my chance, and I beg the House to give it a Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker: May I point out that as this is obviously a non-party debate it would help the Chair to keep a balance in the debate if those who wish to oppose the Bill would let me know.

11.34 a.m.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I congratulate the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary) on his good fortune in the Ballot for Private Members' Bills and also on the manner of his presentation of his Bill to the House.
This has been a turbulent week in British politics, and the subject of this debate may seem trivial compared with the matters of great moment which the House has discussed in recent days. Nevertheless, as the hon. Gentleman may agree, the House is often at its best in debating Measures of this kind, and there are many who will want warmly to acknowledge the genuine concern and compassion which prompted the hon. Gentleman's choice of this particular Bill.
Up to last year the export trade in ponies was essentially a "clean" one. The vast majority of exported ponies went to good homes in Holland, either for riding or breeding or as pets. During 1967, however, investigations by the International League for the Protection


of Horses showed that Holland was becoming overstocked and that more British forest and moorland ponies of poor quality were becoming available. The League prophesied the likelihood of attempts in 1968 to find undesirable markets for this type of pony, and its fears appear 1.0 have been well-founded.
The 1968 export season's prices for the poorest ponies dropped to a point where slaughter became an economic proposition. More and more sub-standard ponies came forward and the League has said it was not surprised to discover that
… certain consignments of those animals followed new routes and were taken to localities which our experience makes us regard with suspicion.
Suspicion is weaker than proof, but there are two points which ought to be emphasised about the League's credentials for being listened to with respect. First, it is in an exceptionally strong position to put this complex matter into proper perspective. Its representatives have for many years carried out regular surveillance of sales and embarkations in this country and of transport, sales and abattoirs on the Continent. They have been permitted to board vessels used for exporting ponies, as well as to visit many abattoirs, and these are facilities which are not granted to other organisations. In addition, special investigations have been conducted periodically, and the most careful study has been made of all available data. The League's object throughout has been to establish the truth and to report it without bias.
Secondly, the League has never joined in the sensational stories disseminated by some animal protection societies, and, indeed, by some newspapers, alleging that the pony export trade is essentially a slaughter trade and one carried on in vile conditions. These stories, as the House knows, have consisted largely of unwarranted assumptions and on so-called "evidence" which does not stand up to reasoned examination.
For bath of those reasons I know that what has been said by the League and by the hon. Gentleman will be taken very seriously by my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture. I know that my hon. Friend will also appreciate that what the

Bill seeks is simply tighter legislative control which, while protecting low-value British ponies, will, at the same time, preserve legitimate export interests.
I think that it will be generally agreed that Clauses 2 and 3 are both uncontroversial and unexceptionable and that the main debate will be about Clause 1, and, in particular, the words
… the conditions to be complied with shall include conditions that in the opinion of the inspector the pony is fit for breeding or riding purposes and properly described in any certificate, licence or other document relating to the export of the pony and that the pony is of not less value than £100, or, in the case of a pony not exceeding 12 hands in height, £70, or such other value as may be prescribed by the Minister for the purpose of this subsection.
There are two points of difficulty which ought to be raised and discussed. Thus it could be argued that a single pair of figures cannot adequately distinguish between the present trade in breeding and riding ponies and a trade in ponies for slaughter. Any one single pair of figures could either interfere with the trade to which no one has any objection or even allow through some ponies which could be slaughtered. Further, it may be argued that a practical difficulty is that it would not be easy, some would say it may be almost impossible, for any one person to be able to give an authoritative valuation of each and every pony, of whatever breed or cross, that might be presented to him. Certainly, it may not be right to expect the Ministry's present welfare officers, who are "vets", to do this work.
These are important difficulties about Clause 1, but I know that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will address himself to them in a helpful and constructive way. This is a Bill which deserves the detailed and sympathetic consideration of the House and I hope that it will be so regarded by both sides of the House. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is well-known throughout the agricultural industry as a humane Minister and administrator. It was my great pleasure to work very closely with him as a colleague in the Department for about four years, and I know that he can be relied upon to study the Bill with the same compassion and concern which has informed the speech of the hon. Member for Withington.
Finally, I hope that the debate will be concluded with reasonable expedition so that other important Private Members' Bills, which will be coming before the House after this, will also have the benefit of full consideration.

11.42 a.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: As he knows, I share to the full the general respect and affection in which the House holds the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary). I congratulate him on a most able and, in parts, moving speech. As he was kind enough to mention, I am as concerned as anyone about the decent treatment of animals, and I believe there may well be parts of the Bill which are necessary and which we can all support. However, the Bill as a whole causes me grave concern.
First, it illustrates the difficulty of general legislation covering the whole country. I shall speak entirely about the situation in Shetland. The Bill may be a valuable piece of legislation for other parts of Britain, but in Shetland we have always had a large trade in ponies and for many years they have been sent to different parts of Britain and of late years they have been exported.
What has been good about the recent developments in the trade is that, both within the country and abroad, there has been a greatly increased demand for Shetland ponies for riding and as pets, and we can find no evidence that they are exported for slaughter. The odd one or two may be slaughtered, but there is no evidence, so far as I know—and the Government will confirm or deny this—that there is any trade in Shetland ponies for slaughter. It would clearly be a somewhat crazy thing to do.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: In what way can it be proved that Shetland ponies are not being exported for slaughter? What positive steps have been taken to make sure that such is the case?

Mr. Grimond: The dealers are interested in the fate of their ponies, and they know the sort of people to whom they sell them. Secondly, it would be slightly eccentric to buy a Shetland pony

to eat. I frankly admit that, once Shetland ponies are taken to the Continent, they cannot be traced, but those who say that there is a big trade in Shetland ponies for slaughter have to prove it. We know that there is a large export trade in Shetland ponies for riding and as pets, but we have no evidence that there is any substantial trade for slaughter. I am talking only about Shetland ponies. If there is any evidence that they are slaughtered, no doubt hon. Gentlemen will produce it.
What has been encouraging about the situation is that the demand has greatly improved not only the incomes of the crofters, but the treatment of the ponies, and it would be a tragedy if the Bill resulted in stopping the trade in these ponies. If instead of being sold in the autumn the ponies were left on the scattalds, or common grazing, they might suffer more cruelty from under-feeding during a Shetland winter than we have any evidence of in the trade. The police in Shetland have seriously considered prosecuting the crofters, but they have decided not to do so, for what can the crofters do if the ponies are left in numbers too great for the scattalds? This is a very difficult situation.
Further, I greatly doubt whether the Bill is enforceable, at least without an enormous increase in the inspectorate and, at a time when we are all trying to avoid that sort of increase, this is a minor but substantial consideration.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: Shetland ponies appear to be a special case. Can the right hon. Gentleman give some idea of the average value of the ponies when exported, because that is the key point?

Mr. Grimond: I am coming to that. I have been making a general observation, but I want now to come to Clause 1.
The average price for ordinary colt foals at the Unst sales varied between £20 and £30, so that it seems the Bill might kill that trade. I am informed on as good information as I can get that the price would fall to £5, and if that happened that might well be the end of the trade.
We are constantly told that we must develop the Highlands. We are constantly providing money to set up new


enterprises and new activities in the Highlands. If, at the same time, we pass legislation which undermines existing employment and enterprises in the Highlands, we undo all the good being done, and this trade in ponies is a traditional Shetland trade of great importance to people who have very small incomes and who would certainly not be absorbed into industry. The Bill would do great damage in the Islands and other places if it had that result.

Mr. John Farr: The right hon. Gentleman said that the price of Shetland ponies was between £20 and £30. It is very seldom that one finds a Shetland pony available anywhere in England for less than £100.

Mr. Grimond: If the hon. Gentleman has better information than I have about the Unst sales, let him say so. I was careful to say that the price of colt foals at the Unst sales averaged between £20 and £30 I am speaking entirely about Shetland, about which I know a little. I know nothing about the New Forest, or Wales, or any other pony areas. Prices there may be much higher. I am sure that the Government have full information and, if I am wrong, no doubt I shall be corrected. However, I spoke to the auctioneers only this morning and they confirmed these figures which were given to me last week.
That being the case, we can expect the disappearance of the export trade in colt ponies unless Clause 1 is amended. I know that it says that the figures may be altered and fresh figures prescribed by the Minister—no doubt the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us his view about that—but I think that it would be extremely difficult to amend the Bill to meet the situation in the trade in Shetland ponies, because Clause 1 would have to be so drastically amended that it would be virtually deleted. However, if the Parliamentary Secretary has any lower figure in mind, no doubt he will tell us.

Mr. F. A. Burden: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any indication of the average height in hands of Shetland ponies, because an adjustment could obviously be made in price?

Mr. Grimond: I could not give a very useful indication offhand, so to speak.
Hon. Members know what a Shetland pony looks like. The traditional object of breeding Shetland ponies in Shetland was to breed them as big as possible, because they were wanted for work on the crofts. Since this new trade came in—sale for pets—there has been a tendency to breed them smaller. Although years ago the average height of these ponies might have been substantial, in recent years I would think that it has fallen. However, that is a slight diversion. Perhaps this part of the Bill can be amended.
I have great sympathy with the greater part of the next two Clauses. But, I am told that substantial parts of the Clauses could be enforced by Order. No doubt the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us whether this is so. If so, that would obviate the necessity for the Bill. Most of us feel that there already is enough legislation.
Either Clause 1 will have to be drastically amended or, I must tell the hon. Member for Withington quite frankly—I know that he will be extremely sympathetic towards us—I am assured by the veterinary service, by the National Pony Society, by auctioneers, and by everyone I have consulted, that it will do damage to a perfectly legitimate trade in Shetland and will damage the trade in a way which will throw the whole thing back so that the ponies will be worse off.
The proposal in Clause 3 (1) (b) is a perfectly legitimate proposal as regards cerain parts of Britain. But Shetland ponies foal late, because they are in the extreme north. The sales are usually held in October. If the time limit of five months is retained, they will not be able to be sold. If the Bill is to go forward, we would like the time to be reduced to four months. Again I have tried to get figures. I repeat that I am speaking only for Shetland. It is the only place about which I am entitled to speak. One hundred and sixty-two pedigree ponies were sold at Baltasound on 23rd October. Of these, 35 were born in June or later. As far as I can discover, taking one year with another, between 25 per cent. and 50 per cent. of foals sold at these Autumn sales are probably foaled in June or later.
Hon. Members may ask whether we cannot hold the sales later. I understand that already there are complaints from the buyers that they have to come to


Shetland so late. It would be difficult to hold the sales later.
I have made inquiries as to whether any cruelty is involved. There has been one case in which veterinary officers thought that a foal was parted from its mother too early. I am not saying that this is the only case. I do not deny that there may be an occasional danger. But five months is too long. It could be legitimately left to the veterinary people to decide whether in particular instances there was any reason why four months should not obtain. If five months is retained, this will put an almost insuperable handicap on the trade.
I wish to reiterate that no one, least of all the Shetlanders, who have a strong vested interest in seeing that their ponies are well looked after and are in good heart in the hands of the eventual buyer, wants to encourage cruelty. If I do not talk about the rest of the Bill, it is simply because I agree with it. I have made these what I regard as valid and important points, not out of any spirit of hostility, but because I feel bound to put it to the sponsors of the Bill that unless it is drastically amended it will do great damage to a perfectly legitimate and very important trade in a part of the world that is not too well off.

11.55 a.m.

Mr. Charles Doughty: I rise to discuss the Bill. I put it no higher than that. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester. Withington (Sir R. Cary). I am sure that he will not take offence when I tell him that we are discussing a short Bill which has one object, but he discussed matters more of sentiment than of hard fact, varying from myxamatosis to pesticides, neither of which are or indeed could be mentioned in the Bill. I know that my hon. Friend will not be offended if I endeavour to bring the House back to the hard facts of this business.
I took notes of things that my hon. Friend said. He went through a great many facts. He ended by saying that the Bill was meant to deal with the weak, the lame and the sick. With that sentiment I entirely agree. Whether some ponies which are sent for export are slaughtered is not a matter that arises on the Bill. In any case, I am informed that there is no evidence to support any

such allegation. No doubt when ponies get older and get past work they will suffer the same fate on the Continent as they would suffer in this country when the end of their working life arrives.
I am sure that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will correct the figures I give, if they are wrong. I must apologise in advance if I am not here to hear the Minister's speech, because I have another engagement which will take me elsewhere. In 1965–66—I have no later figures,—the trade had risen to 5,000 to 6,000 ponies a year exported.
There is, not only in Great Britain, but also on the Continent, a growing interest in ponies for riding. I regret to say that in the age of the internal combustion engine riding has declined. Whether the late Sir Winston Churchill was right in saying that the internal combustion engine is a curse on our lives, I do not know, but unfortunately it is here and it makes riding on the roads much more dangerous than it was in previous years.
In a small way this trade helps our export figures. I would not use the improvement in the export figures to support any suggestion that we should export unfit animals. I hope that in some way—perhaps the Minister can tell us how—we can stop the export of animals which are unfit for use when they arrive at the final port of destination or, which is even more important, which are unfit to travel from the place where they are purchased to the continental destination.
Let us start by agreeing on one or two facts. The ordinary pony is a very hardy animal. It can stand a very great deal. Most ponies are born on moors, be it Dartmoor or in the Shetlands. They are not brought up in soft conditions. Like all animals of the horse type, they require regular food and water. If they get that, and if they are fit, they can stand without the least harm a very great deal. They are not brought up as pets. They are useful working animals, starting, as they do, literally in the wild.
How can restraints be imposed upon the transport of sick animals without imposing undesirable restraints upon this perfectly legitimate and increasing trade? I do not think that the Bill can do it. It may well be that, if amended, this purpose could be achieved. It is no good saying that a show pony, if it wins at a


show, fetches a big price. Of course it does, because the purchasers hope that at another show it will win more rosettes and prizes. It is no good saying that a pony which has been carefully broken and schooled and is fit to ride by a child of four fetches a big price because it is safe. Of course it does. There is a great hunt for such ponies all over this country and on the Continent.
We have to deal with the general class of fit pony and, if necessary, the unbroken pony. There is no reason why a person on the Continent should not purchase a pony, which he knows to be unbroken, with the purpose of breaking it when it arrives. Those ponies are often bred. They are not fairly described as scrub ponies. I have in mind the Dartmoor pony which breeds all over the Moor and is rounded up once a year. We may call them scrub ponies, but they are in fact very strong, useful and adaptable when broken. However, they do not fetch anything like the figures set out in Clause 1.
The winner of a pony show fetches a great deal more. If we put in these figures, £100 for the ordinary pony and £70 for ponies not exceeding 12 hands in height, which I think would include Shetland ponies, we will put paid—and I use the expression in the double sense of the word—to a large part of this legitimate and excellent trade.
I have no figures about the price for an unbroken Dartmoor pony, but I should not be far wrong if I put it at £30 or £40. Unless it is a prize winner, it certainly does not go up to £100. Even if I am wrong, we want inspection by veterinary surgeons who know whether an animal is sick, lame or weak.

Mr. Burden: Has my hon. and learned Friend read the Diseases of Animals Act? Inspection is provided for in the Diseases of Animals Act.

Mr. Doughty: I am well aware of that. That applies to cart horses, vanners and riding horses. Because it is in another Act does not mean that it is right in this Bill. I am concerned with this Bill.
Veterinary surgeons are well trained professional people who are capable of saying: "This animal is unfit to travel.

You caused it to travel from Shetland, or wherever it may be, to the East Coast port from where it is to go. You should have known that it was unfit to travel". Prosecution will then follow. But veterinary surgeons are not horse dealers. They may have a rough idea of what a pony will fetch, be it in this country or on the Continent, but that is not their business.
My criticism of Clause 1 is that the wrong test has been applied. The test should be one of fitness or, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Withington of the weak, the lame or the sick. Although I know what lies behind the Bill, and I support it, I should be loth to be party to supporting a Bill which I consider unworkable. That is the only point I make. That is why I think that the proposed new subsection (4A) to the 1950 Act is not workable in any practical way. If the Bill were to get second reading—and I shall not oppose Second Reading—the Clause would have to be deleted and a new Clause put in its place dealing only with the transport of the weak, lame, sick or, I might add, the over-age pony.
I agree that ponies, like horses or other animals which travel by train, lorry or boat, should be properly fed and watered on the way at regular intervals. This is a very complicated way of setting it out. It is sufficient to say that they must be fed and watered at regular intervals and also that the feeding and watering should take place on proper premises—not on a quayside with a bucket and hay thrown on the floor. We can deal with that in Committee if the Bill gets to the Committee stage, but I do not like the wording.
One final matter on the wording of the Bill. I cannot see why there should be a particular exception for registered ponies. Ponies may be bred not so much in the wild as on a person's farm or on land surrounding his house and who, being a member of a pony club, has registered them, knows them all by number, and can sell them with a proper pedigree and number in the stud book. I am sure we shall hear later why it is necessary to refer to these ponies. However, concerning travel, they are ponies. They may have greater value because they come from a particular pony stud farm, but their inclusion separately does not appear to be necessary.
Concerning the general idea underlining the Bill, I have no objection. Indeed, I support it. But I think that it wants redrafting or so amending that we shall not recognise it in this form. If the Bill is passed in this form the only effect will be to put a totally unnecessary brake on a legitimate trade.
I am glad to note that all over Western Europe people are riding ponies more. When I say "people", there are very few ponies, except a Shetland, which will carry me—more likely my grandchildren.

Mr. Marcus Kimball: I can certainly supply my hon. and learned Friend with a good strong Galloway pony.

Mr. David Gibson-Watt: Would a vanner be the answer?

Mr. Doughty: A vanner is hardly a pony. It is dealt with in a separate Act. It would have to be a strong pony. At any rate, I would only get any distance on a pony of 14 or 15 hands.
I am glad that pony clubs attached to various hunts are flourishing. The children seem to have excellent ponies. I hope that the same thing happens on the Continent. The riding schools have a large number of these ponies, and strong little things they are. I hope all that will continue both in this country and on the Continent. Let us have the weak, the lame and the sick ponies put down mercifully. If anyone wants to introduce a Bill, or amend this Bill so that it covers that facet of the trade, they will have my support.

12.10 p.m.

Mr. David Gibson-Watt: I approach this Bill with an open mind. I came here to listen to the speeches before deciding my view on the Bill and I would like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary) for the way in which he introduced the debate. Like the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) I have a particularly local interest in a certain type of pony. I immediately confess an interest. I am a small breeder of Welsh ponies. In addition, over a period of three years, from 1962, I have been the Chairman of the Livestock Export Council and have had several opportunities

of seeing the conditions applying at various ports and quarantine stations, and the way in which animals of all sorts were fed and watered.
The Welsh Pony Society, with its headquarters at Aberystwyth, has, like other societies, a particular and continuing interest in seeing that ponies which are exported arrive at their destinations in good condition. That is why I join with other hon. Members who have said that Clauses 2 and 3 are in accord with the wishes of everyone of us. There are some difficulties about Clause 1. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland was entirely accurate and appropriate in the comments that he made.
In my position as Chairman of the Livestock Export Council I share his opinion. I have not exported many animals, but last year I exported two Welsh ponies to Germany. I sold them for £110 and £112. Both were colts and both were yearlings. They were perfectly capable of travelling, and the mover of this Bill will say that both would still be able to be exported under Clause 1, as it stands.
I accept that, but believe that I should be extremely lucky, as a breeder, to continue to get that amount of money for that type of pony. I have some doubts about the figures that he has in the Bill, particularly with reference to what has been said by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. It is clear that if Shetland ponies are to be covered there must be a severe Amendment to Clause 1.

Sir R. Cary: At the end of the Clause a discretionary power is given to the Minister enabling him to prescribe another value.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing this to my attention. That is very important. Perhaps when the Parliamentary Secretary replies he may, with the agreement of my hon. Friend, suggest that it would be wise to adjust Clause 1 to provide that the Clause will work as we all desire.
I want to underline the volume and importance of the trade. I have been given some figures for Welsh ponies and cobs, from the Secretary at Aberystwyth. In the last 11 years 5,914 ponies were exported, the vast majority going to Holland, some 3,382. We come now to


the crux of the problem. On the Continent, pony trekking and riding has grown as much as it has in this country. In the upper reaches of the Wye Valley pony trekking is an immensely important tourist attraction. To those who are unhappy about the ultimate end of some of the ponies exported to the Continent, I suggest that they go to one of the countries to which the largest amount of ponies is exported, Holland. I have had reports about the two ponies which I sent to Germany last year, from the owners and friends of mine and they are doing very well.
The export figures are interesting. They have grown for Europe, but diminished for Canada and the United States, where in the late fifties, the export of Welsh ponies was very great. The export of ponies amounts to about 5.000 or 6,000 a year. Providing the good name of the pony trade is kept, particularly by the breed societies, who have a great responsibility, and by the markets, it will improve further. The hon. Member referred to some of the markets in my part of the world. He referred to Cwmowen and Llanafanfawr. He could well have added Llanybythyr, Hay-on-Wye and Hereford. All these are major markets, where a large number of ponies are sold.
The way in which these markets are carried on is highly important if the trade is to retain its good name. As a boy I can remember waking up in the morning and hearing the clattering of horses and ponies on the road outside my home. The gates had to be shut, and coming down the road were the hill farmers, driving their ponies to New-bridge-on-Wye Fair. In those days it was not safe to be on the road, certainly not when the farmers were on the way home in the evening. I can remember when the ponies were sold in the roads, tied up on the side of the road in the village. That was Newbridge Fair. Nowadays we do not see the rough handling of ponies that we used to 30 or 50 years ago, and we are glad of that.
When the Minister speaks I am sure that he will underline the importance of Clauses 2 and 3, the question of "the disciplines", cleanliness, food and water, and the state of the animal when it leaves the country. On Clause 1, I hope that

he will give us the benefit of his experience and the knowledge of his Department. I trust that he will be able to help the mover of this Bill so to shape it that it will not harm the important pony exporting trade, which is so important to many breeders and which gives such an immense amount of happiness and satisfaction to young people abroad as well as here.

12.20 p.m.

Mr. James Ramsden: I have been concerned with horses or ponies for most of my life, and have a great affection for them. I knew that a Bill had been introduced in the other place dealing with this question and that another Bill, similar if not exactly the same, had been briefly discussed in this House in a previous Session. I was, therefore, glad to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary) had been successful in the Ballot and was proposing to introduce the Bill on a day when there would be opportunity for more ample discussion.
I had not had the opportunity of examining the contents of the Bill in detail, but expected to be able to give my hon. Friend my unreserved support today. The House will not be surprised to hear, however, after what has been said by the last three speakers—in particular, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond)—that, after looking at the proposals in detail, to discover what I could about the background to this subject, I could not help having some reservations as to the practicability and workability of the Bill, and about its effects on the export trade.
The background to the Bill is the genuine and deep concern of our people for the proper treatment and welfare of animals—in particular, the horse and the dog. One of the nicest things about the English people—I am sorry, I should say the British people, because we must include the Irish—is the way in which they respond to the beauty and lovable qualities of the horse and the dog.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Will my hon. Friend include the cat?

Mr. Ramsden: I do not want to go through the whole gamut of the animal kingdom.
My hon. Friend the Member for Withington mentioned his earlier military experience. One of my most vivid recollections of the war is of a subaltern in my regiment despatching, one by one, with his revolver, the horses in a transport column which had been captured from the enemy and which were receiving wounds. Englishmen feel that this is the proper way to behave. It is fair to say that successive Governments have recognised this feeling in their legislation.
Side by side with this feeling there is an equal one—whether or not it is as justified I do not know—that foreigners do not approach animals from the same point of view as we do. We have some apprehension that their standards may be different, and we feel some anxiety about the matter. The word "sovereignty" has often been mentioned lately. When an animal, in the process of export, leaves the sovereignty of this country and goes into the hands of foreigners, we feel that we ought to do everything possible to make sure that it is treated properly.
I have little experience of the export of animals. The only two which I have exported were foxhounds, which I sent to the Secretary to the Speaker of the French Parliament—a friend of mine and a great Anglophile, now, alas, deceased. He met them at Victoria station and was to take them back on the boat train to Paris. He was about to put them in the guard's van when the man in charge of the van intervened and said, "No, sir. Those are high-bred English foxhounds. They cannot possibly travel in the guard's van. You must have them with you in your sleeper." My friend was obliged to do so, and they passed a far more comfortable night than he did. This is illustrative of the wide feeling among our people about the right way to treat animals.
I now turn to the question of ponies bought live for export. We have an instinctive repugnance to the idea of horses or ponies being eaten. We do not eat them ourselves. Nevertheless, in many countries, especially in Europe, horseflesh is eaten and relished. There is a demand for this type of meat. However much our people may deplore it, it is inevitable that hundreds and thousands of our

horses and ponies will, when they are old, or lame, or past working, end up on the Continent as meat on the tables of the Dutch, the Belgians, or the French.
There is nothing discreditable about this trade. Export takes place in the form of carcase meat and despatching is done in registered and inspected slaughterhouses, in the humane conditions prescribed by the House. The trade is widespread, and the reasons are entirely practical. Many of our horses and ponies, when they come to the end of their useful lives, can no longer be given the benefit of a long retirement in a field, especially in the more suburban areas. Disposal is, therefore, a problem.
Disposal is mainly handled through carcase meat for economic reasons. The price of this type of meat is about 7d. a lb., or £4 a cwt., as compared with the price offered in the knacker's trade—the pets' and cat's meat trade—of 1d. or 2d. a lb., or under £1 a cwt. I do not think that this should cause concern to horse lovers, because eventually there has to be disposal and the more valuable the commodity—to put it in stark economic terms—at the end, the less likelihood there is of ill-treatment and eventual cruelty.
I have ascertained the facts as well as I could. It appears that imports to Belgium alone in 1967 of carcase horse-meat for human consumption, fresh and refrigerated, was something over 14,000 metric tons. I have ascertained that from the Belgian import figures. The Board of Trade figures are slightly, but not much, different. That may be due to a different way of collecting statistics. Taking the killed-out weight of a horse at 10 cwt., which is my estimate—I have no knowledge of this other than as an amateur—it would amount to about 30,000 horses exported in carcase form every year.

Mr. Speaker: I hesitate to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but it seems that what he is talking about is outside the Bill.

Mr. Ramsden: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I believe that it is directly relevant. As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland argued, there is very little evidence of export of live ponies or horses, and that is what the Bill deals with. My argument is leading


to an examination of the relative economy of exporting live or in carcase form. I think that the evidence I am producing will endorse the view that there is practically no export on the hoof and that it would be foolish for anyone to engage in it.
I had reached the point of saying that there is evidence that about 30,000 horse carcases are exported to the Continent every year. Against that background, I wish to look in more detail at the effects of the Bill. When one looks at the Bill and at the 1950 Act which it seeks to amend, one wonders why no provision was made in that Act to protect ponies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) has said that the reason there was no provision in the 1950 Act was that at that time there was no export trade in ponies and that this has developed since. Presumably, at the time of the 1950 Act, there was no export trade of ponies on the hoof for slaughter and no suspicion that there might be such a trade. If there had been such a suspicion the Government certainly would have made provision for its prevention or restriction. There was no export trade live and no export trade on the hoof, but there must have been in 1950 a demand for horse-flesh for the table on the Continent, maybe not so great but comparable with what there is now.
I have not been able to get the relevant import figures; no doubt the Parliamentary Secretary has them. If there was such a demand it must have been satisfied somehow. It is reasonable to assume that it was and is satisfied by the export of carcasses from this country and from other European countries. This demand on the Continent has always been met by exports, but not by exports on the hoof.

Mr. Burden: The trade was built up in carcase meat because provisions laid down by previous Acts of Parliament set a price on the export of live animals. That has built up the carcase trade and forced the export into the carcase trade.

Mr. Ramsden: I respect the depth of my hon. Friend's knowledge. What he says may correctly describe the origins of the carcase trade. When one looks at the present position of a trade of about 30,000 carcases a year and an export trade of about 4,000 ponies on the hoof,

of which we know the vast majority go for riding or breeding—

Mr. Grant-Ferris: How do we know that?

Mr. Ramsden: I think the House will accept that that is our general information. It seems unlikely that there is much trade on the hoof for slaughter. I asked a man in the North of England who knows most about this trade, and who sells cattle in Antwerp and the Low Countries, where it is accepted that the centre of this market lies, and he told me that there is no evidence at all of ponies arriving direct for slaughter.
We all wish to see prevented as far as possible the dispatch of batches of ponies from the Shetlands, the Welsh hills or Dartmoor to the Continent, where, in the main, they are destined to be sent as pets or to be ridden or for breeding, and the odd one in the batch which goes lame finds its way through the normal processes for disposal. That happens, and it is very difficult to deal with it other than by some form of veterinary inspection at the port of departure.
Regulations have been made by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food enjoining veterinary inspection before export. I have been told—but I hope that it is not so—that there is an exemption in the case of ponies exported for breeding. If that is so it is a pity, and it should be put right. I should be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary can reassure us on this matter. The reference I make is to the Horses (Excepted Cases) Order, Statutory Instrument No. 508, paragraph 3.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie): That applies to ponies for breeding, over a certain price.

Mr. Ramsden: The batch ponies with which we are concerned have the benefit of a veterinary examination. I think that that is right, and I am relieved to hear it.
Another step which ought to be taken to safeguard the conditions under which these ponies travel was mentioned either by the hon. Member or by a noble Lord in another place—and that is that we should press on with the work which is being done in Europe in connection


with the transport of live animals. I believe that the Council of Europe have a convention for the protection of animals in international transport, and I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will tell us that it has been ratified or that any other necessary steps have been taken to make it effective.
These steps ought to be taken, but I think that there is nothing practicable which can be done about ponies which are sold in batches. I do not think that the minimum price proposals in Clause 1 could possibly be workable in this context. The point was well made by a noble Lord in Committee on the Bill in another place, when he gave an example of the difficulties of pricing an individual animal which had been sold in a batch of animals.
It seems to me that the apprehension which people have about this trade can be exaggerated. On the figures given, in my view the sale of Shetland ponies for the slaughter trade would not be economic, even if the figures fell as low as £25 to £30. It would not make sense to export them for slaughter.
I was impressed by what was said the last time this subject was debated by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, both of whom spoke of the absence of any concrete evidence of the export and slaughter of ponies for human consumption. As a House, we should give weight to that fact, although equally we should give weight to any evidence which may be produced to the contrary. I understand that at the moment there is little firm evidence to the contrary.
I am glad that my hon. Friend has brought forward the Bill and I certainly support its objects and would not dream of doing other than giving it a fair wind. We need to look extremely carefully at the practicalities, particularly of Clause 1. I hope that my hon. Friend will give an assurance that he will take note of that point.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that there are still a goodly number of hon. Members who wish to take part in this debate.

12.43 p.m.

Mr. F. A. Burden: I have listened carefully to the speeches, and

particularly to that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden). We seem to be losing sight of the fact that the Bill does not intend to put any embargo on or any difficulty in the way of what we in the House consider to be a legitimate pony trade. Clauses 2 and 3 are intended to ensure that animals are exported under proper conditions and Clause 1 is intended to ensure that ponies are not exported on the hoof for slaughter. Most people, I am sure, will agree that that is a very commendable object. Indeed, I propose not to deal at length with Clauses 2 and 3, because there appears to be considerable agreement about them.
I remind the House that this is no new Measure. The very serious concern felt about this subject has been expressed in two attempts to introduce a Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) sought two years ago to bring forward a Bill in this House and last Session Lord Silkin sought to bring forward a Bill in another place. Although the Bill was debated for a comparatively short time in 1967, it was talked out by an hon. Member opposite who had been "conned" and asked to do so.
Following this somewhat prolonged debate and the views which have been more broadly expressed, I feel sure that the Minister will this time give the Bill his blessing—at least to a considerable part of it, particularly Clauses 2 and 3—and that we shall also be able to persuade him that Clause 1 should be accepted, albeit with some amendment to take care of the interests which have been expressed. I see no great difficulty, for example, in setting a value on a Shetland pony, tying that to its height in a recognised measure for horses of so many hands.
All that the Bill aims to do is to make it uneconomic to export horses or ponies for slaughter abroad. It does nothing to stop what we consider to be legitimate trade. It seems to me that if it is implemented, certain of the measures will help to preserve the high quality of the pony stock in this country and to ensure a greater export of high-quality ponies.
The Bill has the full support, as I know, of a considerable number of animal welfare societies, many of whom have stated—and we must accept that they are honest about it—what they consider to


be legitimate and proper information to the effect that ponies are exported on the hoof for slaughter. The Bill certainly has the general support of the Parliamentary Animal Welfare Committee. I do not intend at this stage to go into the names of the various animal welfare societies which have supported the Bill, because they are comparatively well known.
All that the Bill attempts to do is to bring legislation for ponies into line with legislation passed a long time ago to control the export of horses for slaughter. Hon. Members will see that Clause 37 of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1950, lays down restrictions for the export of horses. It provides that they shall be inspected immediately before shipment by a veterinary inspector appointed by the Ministry. The conditions require that the horse
is capable of being conveyed to the second-mentioned port and disembarked without cruelty",
and that it
is capable of being worked without suffering".
The Clause lays down the minimum price at which a heavy draft horse shall be exported as £80 and that for a vanner as £70.
But this discussion goes back even further. The necessity for legislation was debated before 1937. A Bill on this subject was introduced in 1937. Among those who took an active part in the debates was Sir Robert Gower, a very distinguished Member of Parliament for Gillingham, the constituency which I now have the honour to represent, and, as the House knows, at one time the Chairman of the R.S.P.C.A. He and others in those debates made it perfectly clear that they were introducing the Bill to lay down minimum prices for horses for export entirely to stop them from being exported for slaughter.
Later, in 1966, not so long ago, Statutory Instrument No. 507 set the minimum value for certain categories of horses for the purposes of Section 37 of the 1937 Act. That was a logical follow through when, in view of modern economic circumstances and the lessening of the value of money, the minimum prices of horses covered in the Act needed to be increased.
The 1937 and the 1950 Acts were to protect heavy draught horses, vanners, mules and donkeys, but they made no provision for ponies. That is why we welcome the provisions of Clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill.
In 1966, the minimum value for a heavy draught horse in this trade was raised to £135, that of the vanner to £125, for a mule to £125, and for an ass to £25. Why was the pony excluded? Why should a pony under 15 hands be excluded? Why should not ponies be given the protection which these precautions were intended to give to heavy draught horses, vanners, mules and asses? Why is it logical to give them protection against going into slaughterhouses on the Continent, and not ponies? The original categories were given protection because it was known that they were going to the Continent for slaughter and the people of this country, who pride themselves on being great animal lovers, thought that these animals should be protected, and they were not satisfied with the conditions in which these animals were slaughtered on the Continent.
Whatever my hon. Friends may say, are we absolutely sure that no ponies are taken on the hoof to a slaughterhouse, or, if they are, the conditions in which they are landed at the point of disembarkation, their treatment in the abattoir and their final destruction at the point of slaughter, are such that we can be completely satisfied? If we can be completely satisfied, why do we not remove the restrictions on the export of heavy draught horses and vanners and others, restrictions which were reinforced by the present Government as late as only two years ago? Some of us are concerned with whether some of these animals are going abroad for vivisection, and we want to ensure that that is not the case.
The conclusion that some precautions should be taken is inescapable. As late as 1966, in the Statutory Instrument I have mentioned, the Government made it perfectly clear that they considered it still to be necessary to keep a minimum price for certain categories of horses to protect them from going abroad on the hoof for slaughter. Surely there is no less need to make similar provisions for ponies.
Some of my hon. Friends have said that prices laid down in the Bill will interfere with the legitimate trade. If they are interested only in setting prices which will encourage more and more of these animals to be sent abroad for slaughter in conditions which the House has utterly repudiated from time to time, they should say so. If they are interested in ensuring that a legitimate trade in ponies for riding and other purposes which we would all applaud continues, they should appreciate that certain precautions are not only desirable, but necessary.
I asked the Parliamentary Secretary seriously to consider this position. I cannot see how it is logical to maintain precautions for heavy draught horses, vanners, mules and asses and not apply them also to ponies. If these precautions are no longer necessary for the horse flesh trade, they should be removed from all categories, but if they are necessary for one category of horse flesh, they are certainly necessary for ponies, and it should not be beyond the ingenuity of the Government to find a formula which will fit ponies.

12.58 p.m.

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: The principles of the Bill have been discussed in another place at fairly considerable length and they have also been discussed briefly in this House. We are, therefore, not coming to the matter for the first time. Even the Parliamentary Secretary has had the privilege of dealing with the matter on a previous occasion, and we are aware of some of the views which he may be expected to express today. Although the subject has been discussed on all those occasions, the speeches today have brought up many points which were not mentioned earlier, and the discussion has made a useful contribution to the possibilities of dealing with the export ponies.
I should like to add my congratulations to those offered to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary) for enabling us to return to the matter.
Most of us on this side of the House hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give the Bill such a blessing that at least it can go to Committee

where hon. Members can deal with the points, some of considerable weight, which have been raised today. I tried to find out what sort of support the Bill had in various parts of the country where I have contacts, and I must tell the Parliamentary Secretary that outside the House I have not found anyone who does not wholeheartedly support the Bill.
I have quite a volume of correspondence with me from various quarters urging that the Bill should proceed, and I took the precaution of going to a pony breeder in my constituency in order to find out the views of an expert. This breeder, who produces quite a number of ponies every year and exports many of them, writes:
I hope you will give this Bill your full support, as there is, at present, no restriction on the way these poor ponies are treated. Large numbers of colt foals are sold each autumn, and they are completely wild and unhandled, having no idea of how to eat or drink out of a container. They are herded together in lairages at the ports, and if hay and water is provided they are too terrified to touch it. After shipment, they are sent to markets on the continent, often being sold straight from Holland to Germany and France, arriving in a completely exhausted condition. Colt foals are the worst sufferers, as no-one wants to keep them, and so they offload them on to foreign markets …. Horses and mules are, of course, catered for in the present Act, but 'ponies' was omitted from this Act, and the dealers were quick to take advantage.
Some hon. Members have suggested today that there is no evidence of any such export: I put forward this piece of evidence from someone who is intimately connected with the trade, who knows the conditions of the ports and is constantly going there with ponies bred on that farm. I therefore submit to the Parliamentary Secretary that there is a volume of support for this Measure both among breeders, and in the country.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) brought forward some very weighty and powerful arguments on behalf of the Shetland pony. I am quite certain that, if this Bill goes to a Committee, the right hon. Gentleman will find that all hon. Members there will do everything they can to meet his views about these very attractive ponies.
My next point refers to numbers. My right hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) has done a great deal


of research, and has brought forward a lot of new and interesting information for us to consider. My information suggests that, particularly during the last year, what we have heard referred to as "scrub" ponies have been exported in larger numbers than in the past.
The last figure I have of the number exported is 4,209 in 1967—a figure given by the Minister on 29th October, 1967. Of those animals, there might be, according to the best estimates I have been able to obtain, about 10 per cent. substandard ponies which could not be regarded as being exported for breeding or riding. A somewhat low estimate suggests, therefore, that the total number in one year might be about 300 ponies.
The Parliamentary Secretary, when addressing his mind to these problems on the last occasion, said that he did not want to cause an extensive interference with the trade. I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that the number exported would not be found to be very large, and as for the Bill interfering with the trade, I have already given him the view of one person, at least, who is intimately connected with the export business, who is firmly in support of the Bill.
A point raised particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) was that, while we have been able to legislate for the protection of horses, it has been, apparently, beyond the wit of man to produce a satisfactory clause to cover ponies.
The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt) said that he had exported horses at £110 and £112 each, so that the figure in Clause 1, may well be found to be too high.
The next difficulty was that mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate, who referred to the sale of ponies in batches. A number of difficulties would arise in that way, because ponies coming down off the moors or the hills—

Mr. Burden: In the old days, heavy horses and vanners were probably sold in batches as well, so this should not make for any special complication.

Mr. Godman Irvine: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. The difficulties could doubtless be surmounted.
When ponies come down off the moors and are sold in a batch it is difficult to assign a value to each pony. When this matter was last discussed in the House, the House had just passed Statutory Instrument No. 509 of 1966—the Export of Horses Protection Order. By a misfortune, I suppose, the Ponies Bill of that time was discussed only a few days later, so the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary then said, "Let us have a pause and see how this Order works. Then we can look at the matter again and see what needs to be done." The hon. Gentleman has had his pause. We have an Order, extending to three pages, dealing with the export of horses, and it should now be possible to find some method of extending to ponies a similar protection.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford referred to the Welsh Pony and Cob Society at Aberystwyth, and it occurred to me that, if this Bill is to be enacted, some other form of arrangement than is contained in Clause 3 (1) (c), which requires breed societies' certificates, might have to be considered, because Aberystwyth, which I give purely as one example, is not convenient for breeders in all parts of the country.
Clause 2 (1) (a) provides for a rest to be arranged for any animal which is being exported. I farm only a mile or two from a market, and when my animals go to market they are in the van for only five or ten minutes. If ponies are bred in similar circumstances and are very comfortable in their own stables only a mile or two from the port of exportation, that circumstances might be looked at in Committee.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to allow this Bill to go forward, so that the subject can be further discussed in Committee and the weighty matters which have been put before us today can be given proper consideration.

1.10 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie): Like all hon. and right hon. Members who have spoken, I congratulate the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary) on bringing the Bill before the House after his luck in the Ballot, and I endorse all that has been said about


the sincere tone of his speech, in which he explained his reasons and recounted the long history of his knowledge of ponies and his love for them.
At the outset, I assure the House that I give a general welcome to discussion on the Bill, as I welcome any discussion which leads to a genuine improvement in the welfare of animals. It is true, as several hon. Members suggested, that I know a little about farming and, naturally, have a love for animals. I am sometimes accused of being a bit off-hand, so to speak, on the question of ponies and their welfare. I recall discussing the matter with one of the noble Lords concerned with the Bill in another place, and, when I told him that I had fallen from a pony when I was a small child and been dragged by the stirrup, he said, "That explains why you are unsympathetic"—and he went into the various Freudian aspects of what happens to one when one is a child. However, I assure the House that nothing of the kind is true; I have no bias against ponies or horses. Indeed, in some ways I agree with the late Sir Winston Churchill's observation that it was a pity that they were displaced by the internal combustion engine.
As has been said, this is not a party matter. As a country, we have an impressive record in animal welfare legislation, a record ranging from general Measures such as the Protection of Animals Acts and the recently enacted Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act to various detailed regulations covering particular aspects of animal welfare. There are several Orders relating specifically to the welfare of horses and ponies in transit for export. The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) said that they gave no protection to ponies, but, in fact, there is considerable protection for ponies in transit.

Mr. Burden: I said that the 1950 Act, the Diseases of Animals Act, did not give to ponies the protection given to other horses. It does not.

Mr. Mackie: I accept the correction.
The object of all these regulations is to prevent animals travelling at all if their journey is likely to cause them unnecessary suffering. I remind hon.

Members that every horse or pony, unless specifically exempted—the right hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) raised this point—must have an official veterinary inspection before it may be exported and must be certified as capable of being shipped, conveyed and disembarked without unnecessary suffering. The specific exemption is for breed horses over a certain price. Any mare, however small, can be for breeding, of course, but the exemption from inspection applies to a horse over a certain price.
We cannot directly legislate for the welfare of animals, whether born here or not, in other countries, but we have been doing all that can be done in that regard also. Many hon. Members will know that this country has played a leading part in developing the Council of Europe Convention covering the welfare of animals in international transport. I am glad to say that the Council of Europe has this week opened that Convention for signature by Member States. Perhaps it would interest the House to know that the chairman of the Committee which brought forward the Convention was our Director of Animal Field Services, Mr. A. G. Beynon.
We hope that the Convention will be signed and that it will be of considerable value. I do not suggest that it goes as far as we should like or as far as we go in this country, but we hope that it will do a lot to safeguard the welfare of animals when they are in other countries, as they will be because we export not only horses but a good number of other animals as well. We hope that the Convention will go a long way to meet a good deal of the criticism about the treatment of animals when they reach the other side. I do not imagine that the right hon. Member for Harrogate will expect them all to travel in first-class sleepers as his two hounds did.
I come now to some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Withington. First, this Bill, like all Measures dealing with animal welfare, is purely an animal welfare Bill coming, as it were, under the umbrella of the Diseases of Animals Act, and we cannot use such a Measure for economic reasons. One or two hon. Members made this point. If anything is to be done on a purely


economic basis, it would have to be done through different legislation altogether.
Now, the question of complaints made by various societies and individuals about how the present regulations have been carried out. These complaints are made as strongly as possible. I do not suggest that they are exaggerated, but I must say that I did not much like the criticism of our staff, suggesting that they hid anything which was done. I have certain figures. It is not easy to say how many consignments have gone abroad, but, over the last two and a half years—I confirm that the trade just now is about 5,000 or 6,000 ponies a year—approximately 10,500 ponies went abroad. I do not know how many consignments there were, but there must have been 200 to 300 consignments.
We have had only about half a dozen complaints a year. It may be said that that is too many, but it must be seen in relation to the size of the trade and the number of consignments going abroad. I am sure that hon. Members accept that our staff do a good job. It is not easy to be on hand 24 hours a day, it is not easy to insist that people move animals at a certain time, and so on. I assure the House that the regulations are applied as carefully as we can, and, if there are breaches, prosecutions follow. A big prosecution is pending at present arising out of an export of ponies this year.
I hope that what I have said makes clear that we are genuinely concerned about the welfare of farm animals. I am sure that hon. Members do not doubt my sincerity or the sincerity of others who have spoken about Clause 1, but I must point out the practical difficulties and the reasons why we would not wish to see it enacted as it stands.
The first difficulty is that, as I understand it, the object of Clause 1 is to make it impossible for ponies to be exported for the express purpose of slaughter on arrival. The hon. Member for Withington has repeated his belief, as did another hon. Gentleman—I know that it is held in many quarters—that there is a systematic trade in the export of ponies for slaughter. However, we have no reason whatever, from our sources of information, to suppose that any such organised trade exists. We have received reports of that kind and we

have inquired into a great deal of them both ourselves and through other channels, and our inquiries have shown them to be without demonstrable foundation.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: Will the hon. Gentleman enlarge upon that? That has been said by him before and by noble Lords in another place, but no one has explained exactly what has been clone. Have inspectors literally gone on trains and seen where the consignments go and what happened to them? It is difficult to believe that ponies exported under six months old are exported for any purpose but to be eaten.

Mr. Mackie: Various complaints have been made to us relating to certain areas on the Continent. We have been given the names of towns, and so forth. We have sent people out there, and we have asked our embassies as well to look into the matter. We have found, as I have said, that the reports really had no demonstrable foundation.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I hope, if I get the opportunity to speak later, to give a bit of evidence supplied by the Dartmoor Livestock Protection Society on this matter. I worked in an embassy in Western Europe before coming to this House and I certainly did not have time to travel 100 or more miles behind ponies to see where they eventually reached, but others have had the opportunity of doing this.

Mr. Mackie: If the hon. Member catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we will be interested in the proof, if it is proof.

Mr. Farr: On a point of order. The point which my hon. Friend has just raised illustrates the danger of Ministers winding up a debate before it has been properly concluded and before hon. Members have had full chance to express their views.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): That is not a point of order. The Minister can choose to speak when he wishes.

Mr. Mackie: On a Friday, a Minister generally intervenes not too early in the debate, because if he is able to answer the points before hon. Members speak, he may save them from doing so.
Overseas Governments concerned have assured us that British ponies are not imported for slaughter, nor is it easy to explain, if such a trade exists, why not a single export application has shown slaughter as the purpose for which the animal was intended, especially when such a declaration would not have hindered the export.

Mr. Burden: Does the Minister now say that when a cargo of horses goes abroad, members of the veterinary staff of the Ministry have followed each section of the consignment to its destination to find where the horses have gone? This is nonsense. If the hon. Gentleman is arguing that there is no evidence that the animals are sent for slaughter, equally it is difficult to provide any evidence that they are not.

Mr. Mackie: I did not say that. I simply said that I found no evidence of organised buying of horses in this country to go for slaughter. I do not suggest that none of the ponies go for slaughter immediately after they arrive. As far as we can find out, it must be a very small number. We certainly have not followed every export batch of ponies, but probably a few go for slaughter. As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) pointed out, ultimately they will all be slaughtered on the Continent, irrespective of the reasons why they go abroad.
It can be argued that although it has not been possible to demonstrate the existence of this trade, we should pass Clause 1 to prevent the possibility of such a trade developing. The difficulty in this argument is that the pair of minimum figures given in the Bill—or, indeed, any pair of minimum figures—could not successfully discriminate between ponies going for slaughter and those going for purposes such as riding or breeding.

Mr. Burden: What about horses?

Mr. Mackie: I am coming to horses. The hon. Member is more than usually impatient today. A figure that would be high enough to prevent any deliberate export for slaughter would also interfere with the export of the cheaper types of pony for breeding or riding. I know that the figures in the Bill have been

carefully chosen and agreed by a number of pony and welfare societies, but this agreement does nothing to dispose of the objection that no single pair of figures could achieve the result desired by the sponsors of the Bill for all breeds and ages of pony. This would be true of any pair of figures at any one time, and the matter is further complicated by the seasonal and long-term variations in value which occur.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Can my hon. Friend say anything about the figures advanced by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), which seemed to me to be questionable? Secondly, while we are on Clause 1, can my hon. Friend say whether there has been any consultation between the Department and the International League for the Protection of Horses, whose suspicions I mentioned earlier?

Mr. Mackie: In answer to the second point, we have been in consultation with all societies connected with horses and ponies. I am coming to the second point. The hon. Member for Gillingham is a little impatient. I was going to deal with the figures to show what would happen to the export trade in Scotland.
In 1968 to date 70 per cent. of all the exports from Scotland would have been barred had the figures in the Bill been used. Even if we had halved those figures, a considerable proportion would have been barred, including particularly a consignment from the constituency of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland where six were valued at £19, two at £20 and two at £28. They would all have been barred. Hon. Members must recognise the difficulty of using any two figures at any one time and adding to that difficulty the seasonal and long-term variations which are possible.

Sir Knox Cunningham: The Minister referred earlier in an intervention to a figure for exemption, not for ponies but for horses. As it is difficult to ascertain what should be the exact figures in the Bill it would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman could now tell us the exemption figure.

Mr. Mackie: Without delaying the House, I think offhand that the figure is £180. I can check it before the debate finishes.
Another major difficulty outside the value of the ponies is to require an officer at the port to determine the value of each individual pony. The duty of valuation is not one which could be properly laid upon the State veterinary service, who have responsibilities under existing animal welfare regulations at the ports and airports. Their skills are those of vets and not of valuers. Hon. Members must agree that it would be no easy task for any one person to make a reliable valuation of each pony. The point about batches of ponies has been raised, and that adds increased difficulty.
An officer could be presented with ponies of any breed or cross and he would be expected to state authoritatively the value which they would realise. Indeed, the officer might have little or nothing on which to go, except the value declared by the exporter. If people are determined to carry on this trade, it is only too easy to enter on the declaration too high values for their animals. It was said that not all cheap ponies are bad ponies and some are good for breeding. They would, therefore, come into this picture as well.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: As to the question of value, if a pony is not exported under the open general licence issued by the Board of Trade for a batch of 30 for breeding but is exported as an individual pony, it would have a certificate of origin which would state the value. It is not necessarily the case, therefore, that the veterinary staff would have to value the pony. He simply has to check that the certificate of origin gives a value over and above the minimum value in the Bill.

Mr. Mackie: That would not cover the point. As I have said, there is nothing legal about a certificate of value, except for a horse which is exempted. All these other animals have to be inspected. If we were to ask for valuations, our veterinary people would have fantastic difficulties. Their job is to enforce the legislation which we already have to ensure that the ponies are fit to travel.
The problems inherent in the minimum value system proposed in the Bill are much greater than those in the minimum values already enacted to prevent the trade in worn-out working horses which were revised by legislation two or three

years ago. Their aim is to prevent completely a particular and identifiable trade. It does not take a vet more than a few seconds at a glance to know whether a horse is old and worn out. The sending of a good able horse abroad is an altogether different matter. The intention of this Bill is to discriminate between a worthwhile trade in breeding or riding horses and what is basically a hypothetical trade in ponies for slaughter.

Mr. Burden: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, I just do not agree. If he reads the 1937 Act, which, I hope, he has read, he will find that values were set not in order to stop trade in old, worn-out horses abroad, but to set a figure at which it would be uneconomical to export horses for slaughter, and this is the continuation of that.

Mr. Mackie: I am sorry, but we shall just have to agree to disagree on that point. It is a different picture altogether from the one in this Bill.
I should now like to turn to Clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill. I ought to make it clear to begin with that our veterinary officers do not at present give certificates for the export of ponies that are unfit to travel, either because they are overtired or are too far advanced in pregnancy, or too old or too young. So, in general, ponies do enjoy already safeguards rather similar to those provided by Clause 2 and Clause 3 (1) (a) and (b).
However, if there is on this point a consensus of opinion in this House, then I would accept that it would be helpful to have the safeguard of a rest period, which several hon. Members have mentioned, and safeguards related to the question of the age of the pony being exported and its degree of pregnancy, covered specifically in legislation. We already have power to bring in such legislation under the Diseases of Animals Act, and we do not need the powers which would be given by this Bill, but I can willingly give the hon. Member for Withington the assurance that we could enact subordinate legislation which would have, broadly, the same effect as Clause 2 and Clause 3 (1) (a) and (b).
On studying the Bill we are not quite sure what the purpose is of Clause 3 (1) (c). It was the hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty)


who raised this point as well. The hon. and learned Member has sent an apology explaining why he could not be here to hear this reply. I would welcome further discussions with the hon. Member on this point.
I must apologise to the House for speaking at this length, but I hope that I have made it clear that the Government are in full accord with the sponsors of the Bill about the need to protect pony welfare, and that the fact that we see objections to Clause 1 is not due to lack of good will but to a genuine belief that it would not be practicable to enforce, or fair to some of those engaged in a worthwhile trade which none of us would wish to prevent in breeding and riding ponies. We have judged the feeling of the House that this Bill is worth having a look at. Although I know there will be difficulties, we do not propose to oppose the Bill. If the House wishes to give it a Second Reading then, in Committee, we may—I would emphasise "may"—be able to thrash out something, but, as I have said, we have great reservations. With that I hope that the hon. Member is reasonably satisfied with his day's work.

1.34 p.m.

Sir Knox Cunningham: I do not intend to delay the House for any great length of time. I am not an expert on ponies and horses, and I have listened with very great attention to those experts who have taken part in the debate. I think it is fair to say that there is unanimity in the House on two things. One is that no one wants in any way to disturb the legitimate export trade in ponies. The second is that no one wishes to see ponies exported alive for slaughter. The reason for that is that is that in cases of this kind the conditions of travel are not what they ought to be. There is not much care taken about them when they reach the Continent, and certainly many people are worried about the conditions of slaughter on the Continent.
I was disappointed by the Minister's attitude towards Clause 1. It may be that he took an understandable point of view as a Minister, but he pointed to every difficulty there was; all the difficulties about making it work. It seems to me that if these kinds of value criteria

work in relation to horses there is no reason why, with adjustment, they could not be made to work with ponies.
There are two points I want to make about the values.

Mr. John Mackie: Would the hon. and learned Member tell me how in the Ministry we would deal with ponies valued at from £19 to £28 in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond)? Which of the pairs of figures would the hon. and learned Member choose to allow? Perhaps he would explain if he wants to be helpful.

Sir Knox Cunningham: I am most grateful to the Minister. He is the expert; he has the resources of the Ministry behind him; he knows what the prices in the trade in ponies are. I am going to make my points, but he is the expert, and ought to be able to give the necessary guidance to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary) who introduced this Bill.
There are two points I want to make on the question of the values, the £100 and the £70. Some have said that they are much too high and that it would be very difficult to find out what the right figure should be. I give this suggestion to the Minister. Might it not be a solution to choose a figure which was above—not substantially above, but above—the economic figure of pony meat on the Continent? Pony meat is used a lot on the Continent and one should be able to get a figure at which it would be uneconomic to send ponies to the Continent for slaughter but would not in any way affect the legitimate trade.
My second point about these figures is a quite different one. It is this. I think it is not wise to put a figure in an Act of Parliament. One knows that there is continual inflation of money and there is devaluation which takes place on occasions. There is of course a sentence in the proposed new Section (4A) which would allow the Minister to alter these values, but very often when a figure goes into an Act of Parliament it remains there and an alteration is not made. The figure remains for years so that it bears eventually no relevance to the intention with which it was originally inserted. This difficulty has been got over in certain Acts which have an international


bearing. I can think of one, the Merchant Shipping (Liability of Shipowners and Others) Act, 1958. A figure was put in of gold francs, which is later converted into sterling by Ministerial order, and it is thereafter changed when there is devaluation, or in other circumstances. I am not saying that this is the solution in this case, but I would ask the Minister, with technical advice, to try to find some method of connecting these figures with market values.
Clause 2 is an important one, since ponies may be exported by air as well as by sea. I know that there is a considerable export trade in animals which go often by air as well as by sea. The Minister said that the provisions in Clause 2 could be covered by subordinate legislation. Will he undertake to introduce subordinate legislation to cover the necessary enactments in the Clause?
Clause 3 is a technical one, and I am not qualified to speak on it. However, as a member of the public I am entitled to claim that it contains many matters which, though difficult to deal with, should be dealt with for the protection of ponies sent abroad.
It is invidious to mention a particular organisation in view of the many bodies which have been busy in this matter of pony protection. Reference has already been made to the Dartmoor Livestock Protection Society. This organisation has an extremely active honourary secretary in Mrs. MacDonald and an equally active assistant secretary in Mrs. Bezet. I particularly have in mind the activities of Mrs. Bezet, for she is often to be seen at the docks in the United Kingdom, inspecting the conditions under which animals are exported, and she also tries to follow batches of ponies to see what happens to them once they arrive on the Continent.
It is too easy for people to pour scorn on the activities of those who do this work. We should remember that they do it because they believe in what they are doing and because they are animal lovers. They meet with every form of obstruction, probably naturally so, because they become involved with people who are working and these people often do not want to be bothered with what they sometimes call busybodies. When difficulties arise, they want to solve them

as quickly as possible and get on with their work. It is important, therefore, that people should be prepared to inspect the conditions under which animals are living.
Although I have mentioned only two people who are concerned with this work there are many societies busy in this sphere. The House should pay tribute to them because human beings, nurses and others are able to make themselves vocal. Animals cannot do that. They need our protection. They look to us to look after them, and I hope that Parliament will always do that.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Withington for introducing the Bill. I do not expect it to become law in exactly its present form. However, I would be disappointed if the Minister does not adopt a helpful attitude and, with his experienced staff, try to make the Bill workable because I believe that it can be made to work.

1.44 p.m.

Mr. Richard Body: It is not for me to try to stiffen the backbone of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir Robert Cary). He has been too great a fighter for this cause to be persuaded that any radical amendment of his Bill is necessary.
I say that because I was concerned at the attack made on Clause 1, and particularly on some of the figures in it, by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), especially when he commented on the value of Shetland ponies which are exported. I appreciate that, to some extent, his figures were borne out by the Minister.
I do not doubt that Shetland ponies leave the islands at £19 each, and possibly even less. However, I cannot believe that any ponies sold for that sort of money will be ridden for a very long time indeed. A short while ago I obtained from the Library a copy of that excellent journal, Horse and Hounds, which might be described as the trade paper on these matters. If anyone wants to buy or sell a pony—I speak with some experience of this—there is no better way of doing so than by inserting an advertisement in the columns of this magazine.
I have the current edition of Horse and Hound with me. It contains many columns of advertisements for ponies for sale. It is plain—since this is not the Meat Trades Journal—that this journal is read by children and parents who are interested in riding ponies. In other words, it contains advertisements for Shetland ponies which will be ridden as distinct from being eaten.
Under the heading "Shetlands" there are eight or nine entries. The £70 set out in the Bill is obviously realistic, because, while I will not delay the House by going through these advertisements in detail, it is clear that that figure is approximately what one would have to pay to buy a Shetland pony for riding. One advertisement is for the sale of a yearling colt, for which the advertiser wants £100. That will not be ready for riding for two or three years.
Shetlands of no distinction, except that they are fit to be ridden—they are Shetlands but of no particular quality; that may be inferred from the nature of the advertisements—are for sale at about £65. I realise that, particularly in horse trading, the prices advertised are not necessarily the final prices which the advertisers will receive. But allowing for some haggling on either side, those prices, give or take a fiver either way, represent what one must pay to obtain a Shetland pony for riding. Thus, the figure mentioned in the Bill is realistic.

Mr. Fair: Would my hon. Friend say for how long he has had that copy of Horse and Hound? I have been looking for it in the Library for the last two days without success.

Mr. Body: I purloined it only a couple of hours ago, with the authority of the Librarian. It is an admirable journal and I am glad to know that my hon. Friend reads it.
When the Minister expresses concern about this matter, he should remember that ponies which are sold for £20, £30, or £40 will almost certainly go for slaughter. If we are to stop this trade we must be firm about the price limit and I urge my hon. Friend to hold out for the £70 limit in the Bill and not to be persuaded to reduce it.
We have heard several times that there is no proof that these ponies are being dispatched for immediate slaughter on the Continent. This was the cry less than a year ago, when a similar Bill was introduced. Time and again we are told that evidence about this does not exist—that it cannot be happening; there is no need to worry; the Bill is unnecessary; our diplomats are chasing around and watching this; everything is all right. I hope that our diplomats are not spending their time on this. I do not think that they have the qualifications for it. They should be doing something else.
I doubt the value of any inquiry that may have been made on the Continent on the instructions of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. There are different forms of evidence. I would treat with reserve the evidence of eye witnesses on a subject like this, because I do not believe that such evidence is necessarily reliable. It may be my legal training which drives me to this view. An eye witness is seldom dispassionate. There are few subjects which arouse passion more than this. Eye witnesses who have attended markets and who have travelled on ships with ponies may be misguided, because of the strong feeling they have on this issue. Every lawyer knows how an eye witness can be mistaken in complete good faith. Let us put aside the evidence of any eye witness.
Lawyers often say that the strongest evidence is circumstantial evidence, especially if there is sufficient of it. I believe that the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming. We know that in Britain there has been a great demand for riding ponies. It has been increasing steadily since the war. There has been an increase in the number of people who have begun to breed ponies particularly from family pets, and also people who have moorland rights—farmers who have sought to supplement their livelihood on the hills. I hope that the Minister will agree that it is necessary for many farmers to supplement their income, in view of the present level of deficiency payments, by breeding ponies if they can. On the Welsh hills and elsewhere there are many good opportunities for breeding ponies.
There has been over-production of ponies. It is easy to breed them. Those


of us who have tried to breed ponies know how easy it is. There is a danger of inferior stock resulting unless the breeder has knowledge of genetics and proceeds with skill. All these amateurs who have gone into pony breeding have produced some—I was about to say second-rate ponies, but that would be to flatter the progeny. The resulting stock has been tenth-rate. Such ponies are not fit for riding. They are useless, misshapen, and frequently ill-nourished. They seldom have the stamina to make good riding ponies. As a result, they have become a glut on the market.
This tendency has increased considerably in the last two years. I believe that in the last two years the traffic in ponies across the Continent for slaughter has developed. If the Minister were to say that up to two years ago there may not have been much of a traffic, or that there was none at all, I would not seriously challenge that proposition. However, I would challenge that that is the true position now. I am convinced that there is now a traffic in third-rate ponies which are not fit for riding. They are going into slaughterhouses in Belgium and elsewhere on the Continent.
Figures have been given of the number of ponies being exported. Those who attend the markets and who have seen some of the dealers at work know that there are three kinds of pony which have been added to the export ponies in the last two years—scrub ponies, yearlings, and the old ponies. I cannot believe that a pony in any one of these classes is exported, with all the cost of transport and all the trouble involved, for the purpose of riding or breeding.
Scrub ponies are not quite wild ponies. They are sometimes spoken of as wild ponies, but that is not literally so. They can be fairly described as semi-wild. They are unknown quantities. It is ludicrous to say that it will be worth the while of anyone abroad to purchase for riding scrub ponies, which have never been broken, which have never been ridden, and which often have come off the moors or off common land, which means that they are ill-nourished and, consequently, misshapen or of poor quality generally, I cannot accept that ponies of unknown quality will be shipped to the Continent, with all the expense involved, and there

reduced from their semi-wild state and eventually turned into riding ponies. Those who have seen such ponies know full well that such an exercise would be nonsense.
Yearlings are now going to the Continent on a considerable scale. A yearling cannot be ridden. Three years is the youngest age at which a pony should be broken. It would be wrong to break in a pony younger than three. It follows that if a yearling which is being shipped to the Continent is to be ridden it will have to be kept at considerable expense for at least two years before anyone can break it in. In the intervening two years it may deteriorate. It may not continue to show the promise it had when purchased. No one in his senses would buy a pony so speculatively as that. I therefore suggest that the yearlings which are going to the Continent are destined for the table and not for riding.
The third kind which is going across to the Continent on an increasing scale is the old pony. I feel that I need say little about that. It seems manifest that no one will go to the expense of importing an old pony. Possibly someone might for breeding, but that is rather unlikely. If someone goes to the trouble of importing ponies for riding, he will import youngish ponies of three, four or five years of age, or ponies which have a reasonable lifetime before them.
I suggest that this adds up to strong circumstantial evidence. It becomes very strong when we realise that people breeding and dealing with third-rate ponies must find some outlet for them. They will not find that outlet in this country for riding ponies and they will not find it in any worthwhile knacker's price. However, there is a valuable outlet in Europe. So long as the price of beef and other ordinary meat is what it is in the Common Market countries there will be a strong demand for any cheap meat which can be got out of this country. We all know that there are restrictions on other kinds of meat, but none concerning ponies. I am convinced that this is the outlet for breeders of third-rate ponies, of which many thousands are produced every year.
When the Joint Parliamentary Secretary spoke on this matter 10 months ago


he argued that the Bill was unnecessary. Indeed, the same argument was repeated in another place when the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, introduced a substantially similar Bill. This Bill was the outcome of a working party which considered the need for such legislation. That working party included almost every breed society and society concerned with the welfare of horses and ponies. One significant exception was the International League for the Protection of Horses. I have always been a strong supporter of that League. It was founded a long time ago to stop the traffic in horses to the Continent for slaughter. It was led by a former Member of this House who served the League as Director-General with great enthusiasm and zeal for many years. The League has never been sloppy or sentimental about this subject. It has tried to be factual and dispassionate. Therefore, we must regard its judgment with particular credit.
I understand that a year ago the officers of the League were saying that there were far too many unsubstantiated hysterical stories about horses going across to the Continent. There is no doubt that certain welfare societies sent over people to examine the trade who let their feelings get the better of their judgment. I am prepared to say that their observations may have been less than they might have been. At all events, the International League for the Protection of Horses has, until recently, stood back and said, "The stories about this trade tend to be exaggerated; they are based on a little too much hysteria and sensationalism." Indeed, a sensational story could be made about it.
The coalition between the Joint Parliamentary Secretary and the International League was a formidable one. The Ministry of Agriculture has its own inspectors. They have said that the Bill is unnecessary, and the International League has supported them by saying much the same thing. Therefore, any dispassionate observer might say that the Bill was unnecessary. But that coalition has now been dissolved.
The International League for the Protection of Horses has now come out wholeheartedly in favour of the Bill. It recognises that this traffic exists. It may not have existed two years ago, but the

League now says that it does, because of the glut upon the market in this country of third-rate ponies which has no outlet other than slaughterhouses on the Continent. If the Joint Parliamentary Secretary doubts the necessity for the Bill, he stands alone. The alliance has now come to an end. He has lost his formidable ally. I hope, therefore, that he will modify his views, as has the International League.
I am glad that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary did not advance the argument put forward by one Member of the Government in another place, that cattle, sheep and pigs have to go across to the Continent or have to travel long distances in this country for slaughter, so why be squeamish about horses and ponies; why put them in some privileged position and expect them to be treated differently; they are still animals and they will eventually be slaughtered by the hand of man, or they are likely to be, so why be squeamish about this trade?
There is a distinction and, being a farmer, no one knows it better than the hon. Gentleman. Cattle, sheep, and pigs are brought into existence eventually for slaughter. They are treated in that light by those who breed and care for them. They are not treated unkindly. Every stockman knows that he gets better results if he is kind to his animals. Undoubtedly, many dairy cows and breeding sows—possibly ewes, too—are treated with a degree of affection throughout their service to man. But most farm animals which are not used for breeding are not so treated. They are treated with a degree of kindness and firmness, but they are not treated as pets. This is important, because those who own ponies or horses and have had the pleasure of spending many hours with them know that they are very sensitive creatures—probably as sensitive as any domesticated animal.
One realises this when one takes the condition of a horse or pony which has been ill-treated, even for a short time, or treated without consideration. It becomes frightened and nervous, and if the treatment goes on for any length of time, it is liable to become vicious. This is not so with ordinary farm stock. They do not become as sensitive. Their characters are not changed to quite the same extent. There can be no doubt that horses and


ponies suffer in their mind and character if they are subjected to any kind of harsh or inconsiderate, let alone cruel, treatment. It may be because, over generations, they have been close to man and, generally speaking, have been well looked after. At all events, their sensitivity is such that they should be regarded differently, in this context at least, from those farm animals which may be on their way to the slaughter-house.
Not long ago I encountered someone, I will not call him a gentleman, engaged in this trade. I met him in a market in the South of England. He had brought with him cheap ponies and he was prepared to deal in them. I was tempted to name him, but I have always thought it unfair that hon. Members should take advantage of the position they have here to name anyone who cannot immediately reply to any allegations. I do know his identity, and I passed on the information to one of the welfare societies, which entirely corroborated my suspicions.
I am glad to say that it has been keeping an eye on him. It has confirmed how appallingly he treats animals which pass through his hands. He is in the meat business, but it is pony meat that he deals in. Many are New Forest ponies. He has a small-holding in that area. Almost all of his animals—and not all are New Forest ponies, many are horses—are kept out-of-doors all the year round and, he makes a point of this, he never feeds them at all. They are to provide for themselves on the common land. Throughout the winter months, when there is virtually no grass, certainly no grass of any nutritional value, those animals have to do as best they can.
I will not describe my discussions with this man in the market. In the first place, he aroused my interest when I found that one of the animals in his care had a large number of sores. I began to count them and I reached 11 when he intervened. There were still many more to be examined. He told the most ludicrous lies about how those sores had occurred. He had no intention of putting them right, or treating them in any way. The two ponies he had were to make their way across the Channel for slaughter. It is ludicrous to pretend that those two worn-out ponies, which were worth only a very few pounds were to be

used for breeding. They were too misshapen for any such purpose, still less would they have ever been fit for riding again.
Those two animals were definitely going into the meat trade and I cannot begin to imagine the kind of treatment that they would have on their journey across the Channel into some slaughterhouse. We all know that animals which are brought cheaply by certain types of individuals will be treated cheaply. This is one of the dangers, one of the evils of this trade. I hope that I will be forgiven for speaking at some length, but I want to urge my hon. Friend not to give way on the Bill. It is a first-class Bill, and it has all my support. I hope that it will go through without any delay.

2.05 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I am very glad to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body). He made a valuable contribution to our debate. May I say how glad we are to see him here, able to make his contribution and looking so well, after his own unfortunate experience. I only wish that my hon. Friend had been able to name in the House his assailants on that occasion.

Mr. Body: They threw away the Ponies Bill.

Mr. Campbell: I would like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary) for having chosen this subject for his Private Member's Bill. I am glad to be a sponsor of this Bill, but in supporting him I should make it clear that I have no wish to impede the export business in ponies which are used for riding, breeding or to be kept as pets. The demand for these ponies from Britain is, fortunately, increasing and is to be encouraged.
It is unfortunate that in the last year or two there has been an expansion, of the exporting of scrub and unbroken ponies, too. We must ask: are they being exported for breaking in, training or breeding? My suspicion, particularly as they are sold for comparatively small prices, is that there is cause to believe that some, at any rate, are going for slaughter, and that because their value is regarded as being so small very little


trouble is taken over the conditions in which they travel.
There has been some doubt about the evidence, if there is any, of ponies going for slaughter. As I said in an intervention, there is at least one case which has been brought to our attention by the Dartmoor Livestock Protection Society. Last year, representatives of the Society were able to follow 14 ponies and it may be of interest to the House to hear details of this case. The ponies were consigned to someone described as a continental dressmaker. They were followed by the Dartmoor Livestock Protection Society from Dover to Zeebrugge and then about 150 miles to Ranee, near the French border. The Society says:
The ponies were unloaded into premises containing slaughter equipment and used as a collection centre for the municipal abattoir at Charleroi. The Belgian to whose premises they were delivered holds an important executive post at the Charleroi abattoir, and is described as a meat wholesaler.
I have no reason to doubt the truth of what that society has reported. I would describe it as the kind of circumstantial evidence which my hon. Friend the Member for Holland-with-Boston said was needed to show what is happening, together with his evidence about the person dealing in this kind of thing in Britain.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) confirmed what most of us know, namely, that old ponies which have come to the end of their useful lives are exported for meat, as are horses. He said that the large majority travel as carcases. I would have hoped that we could so arrange our laws to ensure that all the killing is done in this country, and that the export is entirely in carcases.
The Society has devoted some time to following the travels of certain ponies to see what happened when they arrived on the Continent. The idea put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary, that our embassies could provide this circumstantial proof, is only part of the answer. Having been a diplomat in a previous incarnation, and having worked in an embassy in Western Europe, I can assure the hon. Member that we were a great deal too busy with other matters, such

as promoting our exports, to indulge in this kind of thing, except, perhaps, as a hobby in our spare time. It must be for the Livestock Protection Society or some such body to carry out this task. Embassies would, naturally, do their best, through the sources available to them, to confirm the position, but they are not in a position to do more.
Shetland ponies present a special problem. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) drew attention to this fact. He reported that the price of ponies in Shetland is fairly low, but when they are sold in England later they fetch a much higher price. I am prepared to accept that few of them, if any, go for slaughter, because they are not the type which would offer much in the way of pony meat. Under Clause 1 the Minister has some discretion in the matter—or, if he has not, perhaps a change in the Bill may be made in Committee. The words
or such other value as may be prescribed by the Minister for the purpose of this subsection.
would seem to give the Minister discretion to stipulate different conditions for Shetland ponies.
I should be sorry, however, if the difficulties which the case of the Shetland pony presents made the Bill unacceptable. I am sure that ways can be found to deal with the problem, while maintaining the general principle about which hon. Members on both sides are agreed, namely, that there should be a ban on the export of ponies which are likely to go for slaughter, and that ponies should travel under humane conditions.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland about recent developments. It would be unfortunate if the production of Shetland ponies were to be discouraged by anything in the Bill. This is a matter which can be dealt with satisfactorily in Committee.
It is important that conditions should be stipulated in respect of ponies which are shipped abroad, as is already done in respect of horses. The Bill seeks to do this. Some ponies travel considerable distances after crossing the Channel or the North Sea, and no British Government or Parliament can control those journeys. Even if we have excellent arrangements for the conditions of travel


to the port and on the ship, ponies may still be badly treated over several days of travelling after arriving at the port of disembarkation. That is why we feel that there should be a ban on the export of live ponies of little value.
On the other hand, we want to increase our exports of ponies of value. There is no doubt that they will be treated well by those who receive them, because the value of a poney depreciates if it is not well treated. The real need is to make sure that the recently expanded trade in scrub ponies and unbroken ponies is brought to an end. Concern has been expressed on the question whether the pony foals are amply covered by the Bill. Clause (3) (b) is relevant here. It prohibits the export of ponies of less than five months old. I hope that in Committee this provision will be considered further, in order to make sure that there is sufficient protection for foals.
I was glad to hear the Parliamentary Secretary say that the Government would not oppose the Second Reading of the Bill, but that all these matters would be gone in: o in Committee. The Bill will cover a legislative gap and it is becoming increasingly important to fill that gap. It: will also allay the justifiable concern among all in the country who care about the welfare of animals.

Mr. John Mackie: Will the hon. Member say whether the instance to which he referred is the case of the batch of ponies that went to Rance, in Belgium, in May, 1967. If so, the Sun and the International League for the Protection of Horses investigated the matter and found that the 14 ponies were alive and well.

Mr. Campbell: I shall pass the hon. Member the report from the Dartmoor Livestock Protection Society. It has a different date and I have read out the main points. No doubt the person concerned abroad can be recognised and identified. I shall supply the hon. Member with the rest of the information direct. If the facts are correct they provide circumstantial evidence that what we have suspected is happening. That is why I felt it right to give this example, details of which have been sent to me and some of my hon. Friends.

2.30 p.m.

Mr. James Dance: So many powerful arguments have been made in support of this excellent Bill—I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary) on introducing it—that I can be very brief.
There is strong feeling in the country in support of the Bill and of trying to do away with this beastly form of trading. Sometimes people may say there is too much sentiment attached to animals. One of the saddest days of my life was in the early part of the war when, at Tidworth, all our regimental ponies went for sale. It was sad because we did not know what their future would be. That is the feeling which is so strong in the country about ponies: what is to be their future?
Some time ago I took my family to Sheringham for a holiday. There are some fine sands there and my daughter was keen on riding. I hired a pony every day for her to ride. Towards the end of September, when we were leaving, my daughter asked if I could buy the pony for her. I went to the owner and asked if he would sell it. He said that he would sell it in three weeks' time, when it would be earning no more money, because he did not want to keep it during the winter.
I wonder what happens to that type of pony. Are they herded together and then shipped out for purposes described by my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell)? Those ponies have served their masters well for a season, but, because it is not economic for their owners to keep them in the winter, are they herded together and sold? I am pretty certain that they are the sort that are shipped abroad.
I fully appreciate arguments put forward by hon. Members about the actual value of precluding genuine export of riding or breeding ponies. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) that we should put a value on them which would make it quite clear that it is uneconomic to ship them abroad for sale. Unless we do that we shall not achieve the object we desire. I support the Bill and sincerely hope that a formula can be found to see that this trade in ponies


going overseas for slaughter may be killed forthwith.

2.32 p.m.

Mr. John Farr: I join in the thanks and congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary). I congratulate him on the manner in which he introduced this much-needed Measure. I beg him to stand firm on Clause 1. Some hon. Members, on both sides of the House, think that Clause 1 is the meat of the Bill, to coin a phrase. It is absolutely essential that it should be retained. I am rather doubtful if the amounts of £70 and £100 are adequate.
I also congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on being present throughout the debate. He began by pooh-poohing some parts of the Bill, but he ended by welcoming it. I was glad that he did that, but his speech would probably have been more effective and of more value if it had been made after he had heard my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell). His speech had some valuable contents, if the Parliamentary Secretary had known them earlier, he might have altered the content of what he said.
I am particularly concerned about Clause 1, which the Parliamentary Secretary suggested may be difficult to enact. My hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) confirmed my views about this trade. In his interesting speech he referred to prices of Shetland ponies for sale, displayed in Horse and Hound. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) said that he had been in contact with a dealer in the Orkneys this morning and that ponies were being sold there at £20 and £30 per head. The right hon. Gentleman made that speech about half-past 11 or a quarter to 12. Since then I have made certain investigations. I calculate that if one bought a pony in the Shetland Islands this morning for £20, one could have it on the Continent in a few days at a landed cost of about £40.
I shall not bother the House with the intricacies of my calculations, but I reckon that the deadweight of a Shetland pony would be about 2 cwt. If one carries the equation a little further one

finds that it gives a landed deadweight of the value of about 3s. or 3s. 1d. per lb. In the Paris markets, I am reliably informed, beef is 15s. per lb. and pony meat is 7s. or 8s. a lb. It is not very difficult to make the obvious deduction that if one lands ponies at about 3s. a lb. and they are making 7s. or 8s. a lb. in the shops in Brussels and Paris, a trade is to be done. It is a trade which I believe it is the duty of this House to put an end to.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt) referred to an experience he had when he sold two ponies to Germany. He was glad to tell the House that from inquiries he had made they are doing well today. Although the House is delighted to know that, we are concerned with a trade on a bigger and less personal scale than two ponies sent by an individual. This trade relates to nearly a hundred ponies a week for 52 weeks a year. It is a much bigger problem than perhaps my hon. Friend realises.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty), who I quite understand cannot be present now, said that he wished the Bill to apply to the lame, the weak and the sick only. The whole purpose of the Bill is to prevent the export of ponies for slaughter, never mind how it affects the constituents of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. Surely he does not want his constituents to be able to continue in a trade in which their product is going for slaughter on the Continent, under most unsatisfactory and unfair conditions. If the Bill is enacted, Clause 1 will put up the price which those constituents can get for ponies. Instead of exporting the rubbish to which my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston referred, at £20 they will be able to export worthwhile ponies and the commodity will be thoroughly inspected.
I do not think the amounts of £100 and £70 are necessarily too much. Some hon. Members have suggested that they may be a little high. The Diseases of Animals Act, 1950, values had to be almost doubled recently by Parliamentary Order because they had become very much out of date. The figures which my hon. Friend the Member for Withington put in the Bill are probably right. He well described it as "the barrier Clause".
I wonder whether Clause 2 is sufficient? My hon. Friend said that the Minister of Agriculture may by Order make a relevant provision, but subsection (1) (a) is such that I wonder whether the House ought not to mention a minimum period of rest for ponies, such as 24 hours. I am prepared to rely on what the Minister of Agriculture puts in the Order, and no doubt that would be the minimum period which he would include in such an Order. In that case, it would be useful to incorporate it in the Bill.
Clause 3 (1) (a) refers to any
pony mare which is heavy in foal".
I should like to be more specific and perhaps to say,
Any pony mare foaling or considered to be foaling within six months".
Clause 4 deals with enforcement, and I call my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that the penalties in the 1950 Act have not been amended in any Statutory Order introduced in the House since that date. I know that the values of the animals have been amended by Statutory Order, but the level of the penalties for infringement has not been amended and they now appear to be a little out of line. Under the 1950 Act the fine is a maximum of £50 plus £5 per animal for every animal over 10. Consequently, in a case affecting 11 animals the maximum fine to which one may be subjected is £55. I imagine that in some cases it might be well worth risking a "fiver" to make a considerable profit per head in exporting ponies to the Continent.
Finally, I want to make a suggestion which might be considered an improvement in the Bill. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said that the cost of a proper examination by officials at the docks and the airports would be very large. In the debate in June, 1966, the Minister who is present today said that in his view it would be sufficient if the animals were "run past the inspector". If we are to have a Bill of this nature, the job must be done properly. It is not sufficient for animals, in the Minister's words, to be "run past the inspector" under artificial light. A proper examination is not possible in those circumstances.
On the other hand, I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Withington does not wish to impose a severe financial

burden on the Ministry through the additional costs of inspection. Could we not have a new Clause providing that a proper inspection is carried out of each animal, to fulfil the conditions laid down by the Bill, and that the cost of such proper inspection shall be charged to the exporter? By "a proper examination" I do not mean the animals being "run past the inspector"—possibly an inspector who has had a lot to do and who is undertaking this work late at night. I mean an inspection in which the animal's hooves are lifted and there is a proper veterinary examination, for which a charge of £2 or £3 per capita could reasonably be made to the exporter.
Having made that suggestion, I again warmly congratulate my hon. Friend. With many of my hon. Friends, I look forward very much to the Ponies Bill becoming the Ponies Act at an early date.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

INDUSTRIAL INFORMATION BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

2.45 p.m.

Sir Edward Boyle: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is my first success in the Ballot for a Private Member's Bill during 18 years in the House, although I have probably spent as many hours as have most hon. Members in such matters, sometimes supporting controversial Private Members' Bills in the night watches.
In introducing the Bill, I should like first, to acknowledge the very considerable help which I have had from Mr. Alan Campbell, Q.C., who has made a special study of the legal position of industrial security and who advocated as long ago as last December the setting up of a Royal Commission to examine the law as it affected industrial spying. He is also consultant expert on this subject to the Legal Affairs Committee of the Council of Europe.
As the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) pointed out in his helpful letter to The Times yesterday, a good deal of this Bill derives from information of a European scope obtained by that Committee in the course of its researches. The Committee hopes to produce a model law which could have European significance. The whole topic of industrial espionage is only one aspect of the more general topic of the invasion of privacy which the Legal Committee is also studying.
We have all been told for many years, by such writers as Professor Bronowski that effective human action depends on foresight. Of course, that is true. But effective human action also depends to a much greater extent than we sometimes realise on accurate intelligence. Perhaps I can give one or two examples. I recall a series of articles, in, I think, the Observer, a year or two back, on the subject of portfolio investment, stating that from the point of view of the investor, the very first rule of portfolio investment is that there is no substitute for genuinely inside information. I am certain that that is true.
In the same way, thinking of accurate intelligence in a wartime context—I bear in mind that this is a subject about which many of us still must exercise considerable discretion—I recall Sir Winston Churchill confirming in the House a remark of mine that the general public still knows little or nothing about a number of individuals who made a unique contribution to the winning of the Second World War. That is one respect in which wartime histories may be lacking one very important dimension when compared with the more accurate and fuller version which one can often obtain of peacetime historical events.
Turning to the industrial aspect in intelligence, the human and mechanical factor of error is always present, but the great technological advance in photographic and electronic devices over the past 10 years has rendered the means of obtaining, storing and retrieving information much more efficient. When we speak of information we still tend to think that it is predominantly measured in terms of book culture. We think of reference books, memoranda and printed specifications.

Yet within a few years from now industrial information may no longer be thought of primarily in terms of written imprints in a book or blueprint drawings, but rather as holes on cards, magnetic fields on tapes and discs, electrical impulses moving through the memory core of a computer, or even radiations generated in vats of complex chemicals.
Furthermore, when computer systems are interconnected by some of the modern communications vehicles, like television, satellites and laser beams, we will have the capacity to move large quantities of information over vast distances in units of time so imperceptible that they are difficult fully to comprehend.
If anybody says that all this sounds rather like science fiction—I am not against science fiction; at its best it is thoroughly enjoyable reading—I would suggest three answers. First, even in the realm of basic science we in this House underate the speed of developments since 1945. We often forget that the study of chemistry and physics has more than doubled. Dr. Beck, in America, has said that the Middle Ages in biology ended in 1950, the year when I first entered the House. We know that, in economics, many people are studying today as part of an ordinary first degree course work which was at the frontiers of knowledge only 10 years ago. Thus, even in basic and social science we often underrate the speed of development since 1945.
Secondly, I am sure that we hopelessly underrate the speed of development of new technologies. This is particularly true of the United States. I had the experience a few years ago of addressing the British Association on this theme. I pointed out there that it is not just a question of new applications of technology, but new technologies which are growing up rapidly. What is now commonplace—things like the maser and laser effects—were not even thought of 10 years ago.
Thirdly, young people are living in the world in which I have been describing to a much larger extent than is recognised. I am impressed with the fact that today one discovers children who have a remarkable grasp of the basic principles of computer arithmetic, punch cards, and so on, even when they are still at primary


school. I could identify for hon. Members schools in, for example, Manchester and the North of England where remarkable understanding is shown of many of the basic aspects of our modern technological society at an early age.
An unwelcome by-product of these developments is the emergence of the menace of industrial spying, which brings me to the question of the law in this context. The rule of law seeks to safeguard a number of fundamental constitutional entitlements for the subject. It seeks to safeguard personal freedom, freedom of conscience, justice between man and the State and natural justice as well.
Just how far these constitutional entitlements should go—for example, whether we should consciously legislate in the interests of minority groups—is a matter for legitimate argument in the House. Although not relevant today, this is the sort of subject which we discuss on matters like the Race Relations Bill.
I am saying in the Bill that the time has come to extend the rule of law and the basic principles with which we are familiar in order to control the means whereby industrial information is obtained. There is at present no effective legal control or sanction, apart from the necessity of obtaining a G.P.O. licence, and there are no restrictions on the manufacture, use or sale of a number of what will become increasingly relevant devices. I will give a few examples of the sort of devices I have in mind.
Hon. Members will know about the "bug". It is powered by a battery the size of a small tablet and it can be hidden in pens, inkwells, or desk lamps. It can pick up whispered conversations 20 ft. away and transmit them up to 100 yds. There are directional microphones which can be used in conjunction with telescopic cameras. Those are only two examples of the many devices which will become more frequent over the years. That is the setting of the Bill; the growth in the realisation of the great importance of accurate intelligence, the very rapid growth of new technologies and the growth of new devices.
Before coming to the details of the Bill, it might be helpful if I answer two questions which may be in the minds of hon.

Members. The first is: what is the present state of the law, and the second is: is legislation really urgent? On the first—the present state of the law—I wish to make it clear that I am not, and never have been, a lawyer; so that, if I am wrong in this, I apologise in advance.
As I understand the present position, we in this country already have a law for civil remedies where there is a breach of confidence. That is, there is a civil remedy by which there may be an injunction against a third party recipient of confidential information. This prevents a subsequent employer from making use of information which has been improperly given. Many people are beginning to question whether this existing civil law is adequate in the circumstances of today and whether we do not need to legislate against not just the civil wrong of information which is improperly disclosed, but also the criminal offence of industrial theft.
In this context, I quote from an article which Mr. Alan Campbell wrote in The Times in December of last year on this subject:
… if a well trained industrial spy obtains a set of duplicate keys and enters premises without causing any damage and photo-copies industrial documents no 'arrestable offence' is committed. The office breaking provisions of sections 26 and 27 of the Larceny Act, 1916, are still of no avail, notwithstanding the abolition of the distinction between Felonies and Misdemeanours by the Criminal Law Act, 1967. That is not altogether surprising. In 1916 there were no 'Minox' cameras, no electronic 'bug' devices, no directional microphones, no telescopic cameras, no automatic telephone tape recorders and no computers. The industrial spy seeks and obtains his information by use of these devices in circumstances where theft in the legal sense of the term is rarely involved. As regards the photo-copying of documents the last thing he would wish to do is to 'permanently deprive the owner (possessor) thereof: this could only add to the risks of detection.
I am asking whether the law is adequate, whether the time has not come when we should add to the provisions in the law against civil wrongs and whether we do not now also need provisions against the criminal offence of industrial theft. It is not too much to say that we live in a country where, in Mr. Campbell's words, the theft of the board room table is punished far more severely than the theft of the board room secrets.
Secondly, is industrial spying yet a major problem? I would agree that it


is not yet a major problem in this country, though it would be a mistake to suppose that it was not a problem at all. My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Dudley Smith) wishes, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to raise a matter in one particular industry. I, too, with great respect, also say that, while I agree that evidence from trade associations and bodies like the C.B.I. is important, there are disadvantages in these cases in relying too much on what one might call organised opinion in industry.
But industrial spying is a problem in some other countries. According to Sir Richard Jackson, a former president of Interpol, it is worrying the authorities in a number of countries, especially France, Germany and the United States. In any case, it is much better to consider the subject before it becomes a major problem. It is, clearly, something that we should consider well in advance of its becoming a major issue.
I turn now to the details of the Bill. As I have said before, I am not a lawyer. I realise, however much help one may receive from outside, the pitfalls into which laymen may fall when entering into a new area of the law.
Clause 1 defines the offence of misappropriation, and I agree that it is quite a wide definition. I would be prepared at once to consider one matter which, however, has two aspects. In this connection, I would be prepared to agree, if the House thought it right, that the words "guilty intent" should be included. I realise that, otherwise, a third party, such as a new employer, could be guilty under the Clause as it stands, but without intent. And, of course, I recognise the legitimate interest of the Press in connection with the Bill and the importance of protecting the journalist who might come into possession of industrial information quite innocently in the course of his duty, yet without the consent of the rightful owner.
Clause 3 defines industrial information. With respect to the House, I regard this as the most important Clause, in the sense that it raises the most critical and crucial issues we have to consider. I am conscious that, in terms of English law, it breaks some new ground, and I

express my acknowledgements to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald), who has been courteous enough to give me notice of some of his anxieties on one or two points that he would like to raise.
It seems to me incontestible that there are two main categories of industrial property. The first category includes things like patents, trade marks, registered designs and copyright. These are already protected by law, and it is fair to say that the Board of Trade is well used to handling them in a legal context. There is no difficulty about handling them in the context of the law.
The second category is that which M. Feaud, of Interpol, has described as the
… intellectual components of the wealth of industry.
It includes industrial information, such as know-how, research data, formulae, calculations and price structure—the intellectual components of the wealth of industry. With respect, I believe that to be a good definition, but perhaps one that comes more easily from the mouth of a Frenchman than of an Englishman.
I realise the difficulty here from the point of view of English law, which has always resisted too generalised a concept of property. Perhaps it would be fair to say that English lawyers are instinctively more at home with the idea of property in the board room table than property in a trade secret. On the other hand, I put it seriously to the House that we are faced here with a legal issue which will sooner or later have to be faced by Parliament and by lawyers generally.
I yield to no one in my admiration for what some of the founding fathers of modern British society—men like John Locke, in the 17th century, with a deep sense of property as the foundation of the civilised order—have contributed to our traditions of personal liberty, but, after all, philosophers and, perhaps even more, psychologists—all those concerned with men—have come to realise that nice 18th century analogies like "the furniture of the year" are not adequate to describe human experience. So, in the same way, lawyers will have to come to accept a wider definition of what can properly be said to constitute industrial property.


I admit that this is a difficult point, and I do not in any way play down the importance of our British traditions of law relating to property, but there is a real issue here raised by Clause 3 with which Parliament and the legal profession will, I am sure, have to come to grips.
One or two other points arise on Clause 3. On second thoughts, I feel that it should include information about customers, and I am not sure that the expression "lists of customers" is right. Perhaps the reference should be to names, addresses and requirements of customers. But that is a detail which could be considered later.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves his consideration of the interesting matters raised by Clause 3, will he say whether the definition there could include computer software?

Sir E. Boyle: The hon. Gentleman has usefully pinpointed another of the difficult questions regarding just how much should be actually listed in Clause 3. At first sight, I accept that the hon. Gentleman could put up quite a strong case for words to some such effect, if not exactly those words.
Now, Clauses 5 and 6. I agree with those who say that the new provision for criminal action should be defined in such a way as to make clear that existing civil rights under previous enactments are totally unaffected. I am told by those more learned in the law than I that there is nothing exceptional in having a Clause like Clause 6 which provides for both a civil wrong and a criminal offence.
I realise that the Bill breaks new and, in some respects, difficult ground. I do not claim that the drafting is perfect, although I have taken skilled advice on it. An hon. Member presenting a Private Member's Bill does best to follow the example of those authors who acknowledge their indebtedness to those who help them outside but take full responsibility for all the defects. That is exactly how I feel in regard to the drafting. I am certain, none the less, that the Bill deals with a problem which, sooner rather than later, we shall have to face in the House. It is a Measure dealing with some of the implications of

industrial innovation, and a greater responsiveness to innovation is vital for our nation's future. More rapid innovation must entail the need for some change in the legal framework of industry. I do not see how it can be otherwise.
It is fair to say that the Board of Trade has, on the one hand, a tradition of being a Department which has a rather strong attraction to laissez-faire—rather too much so, for some hon. Members on both sides, perhaps—while, on the other, having a long and honourable tradition of wanting to see proper rules of the game. I make this further comment about the Board of Trade. When it takes the view as a Department that some new topic must be dealt with—one thinks of the law relating to monopoly, restrictive practices or resale price maintenance—no Department in Whitehall has more skill at making a really adequate job of its new responsibilities. I must not dwell on this at length but, looking back, I think that the Resale Prices Bill of 1964, which I strongly supported at the time, reflected great credit on my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, who was then Minister, and reflected real credit also on the Department.
I believe that I am here raising issue on which we shall in this country need a change in the law to catch up with the pace of innovation. To quote again the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich, I echo the words with which he concluded his helpful letter:
I sincerely hope that the Government will at least be able to promise its sympathy and support in principle for this Measure".
We have this afternoon embarked on our debate at a quarter to three. The Bill deals with an important projected change in the law, and it raises a subject on which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey and, I dare say, many other hon. Members will wish to speak. I do not suggest necessarily that the House would wish to take a favourable decision on the Second Reading quite so quickly this afternoon.
I should, however, deeply regret it if the House were to decide to vote this Measure down this afternoon. That would be completely wrong. Therefore, if, as I believe, a number of hon. Members wish to speak, it might be best for us to debate the Bill today and for the


debate to become automatically adjourned at 4 o'clock, so that other hon. Members may have the opportunity to take part in further discussion of the Bill later in the Session. I thank the House for its attention.

3.10 p.m.

Mr. Eric Moonman: I am grateful to be able to follow the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hands-worth (Sir E. Boyle) and to support him in his Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has suggested a procedure to deal with industrial information which, one hopes, will be accepted. This is an important subject. One might say that it is an astonishing reflection on the complexity and scale of modern technology that there is need at all for a Bill of this sort. As the right hon. Gentleman has rightly pointed out, however, the Bill arises because of the need for greater innovation and because of the great build-up in the specialist areas of science and technology.
We are concerned in the Bill with checking and safeguarding industrial information. I regard this as vital. Another rather astonishing feature of the background to the Bill and to the subject is that within the last 12 months, according to my own inquiries, 15 jobs have been advertised in the national Press under the heading of "Industrial Investigator" and with a job description which is a combination of hard realism in industry yet also requiring the attributes of 007. There is an increasing recognition within industry of the need to establish proper security systems to ensure that there is no serious loss of information.
There is, of course, another side to the Bill which is revealed by the size of the problem. It is estimated that poor security and loss of information is costing British industry up to £70 million a year. This figure does not include the sums of money at risk as a result of the use of industrial espionage at times of mergers and takeovers. Indeed, there is evidence in the case of two mergers in recent years of a theft of industrial information which certainly had an effect on their outcome.
In one case, a firm took advantage of the information and the bid was timed to coincide exactly with the period when

the company taken over was in financial difficulty. The company in question was at least able to fight off the offer because it later revealed to the company taking over that a secretary had been working for the bidder for two years and had been passing on vital information.
In the second case involving a takeover bid, a company official similarly passed on information to a smaller company which was interested in a takeover bid. The bid was timed for when the directors of the target company were away on holiday, so that they would have the least time to work out counter-strategy. Later the directors met in a room convenient to the official, and the fight-back terms were recorded and passed on to the bidders, who were successful.
This Bill is a modest attempt to put some of these things right. I agree that Clause 1 may surprise some members of the public and, perhaps, horrify the majority that it is necessary to be quite as precise in itemising the way in which information could be made secure. Of course, the references to
any computer, data bank, memory core, laser beam satellite …
have been shown to be necessary in experience from the United States in "think tanks" on the West Coast and there are, possibly, many more items which could be included if we wish to do justice to the enormous changes which are taking place in industry. Possibly, at a later stage of the Bill, we might be able to add to this list. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Handsworth would be willing to consider representations on these grounds.
It is sufficient to say that the point of discussion on a matter of this nature is clearly not only to put something right but also to alert public attention to the enormous pace of change. It seems to me, therefore, that the items listed in paragraph (b) of Clause 1 are sufficient to be going on with, but we will need to include many of the other techniques which have already been in operation in the United States. There has been a great deal of concern both in that country and in Japan.
There is no doubt that the whole point of this Bill is to try to involve the State, through the mechanism of the law, right


across the board, but I would hope that management of individual firms would also examine their practices. This Bill would cover vulnerable areas, but there is a responsibility on management in individual firms to minimise risks to their own security, and this means that each firm should decide its sectors of information which are of a vital character and those should be given close and harsh protection—counter-espionage, if hon. Members like. That is no exaggeration. As is shown by Mr. Peter Hamilton in his book, "Espionage and Subversion in an Industrial Society", the situation which many of us have already found to exist in industry is not exaggerated.
Peter Hamilton lists 21 principles of security and I think there is no doubt that security is fast becoming a science, and a practical one at that. Let me mention a few of the principles which the Ministry ought to be looking at. There are protective measures which must be so designed that when documentary information is stolen or copied or photographed the fact becomes known as quickly as possible, and many of the technique 5 operated today make this extremely necessary. It is certainly important to establish how a company should operate when information has been stolen or has gone astray.
Another principle of security is that all security systems should contain an element of surprise for the spy or thief. Another point is concentration of risk. Vital information should be concentrated into as small an area as possible, and this demands effective classification of material and, which is something which has not been given sufficient consideration by some companies, the creation of a secure area within the premises. A system of record analysis is worth considering.
Mindful of the fact that a number of hon. Members want to take part in the debate I will only say that in supporting the Bill I do so in the knowledge that where managements of individual firms are not able to withstand the pressures and the intrigues of this new animal of industrial life, the investigator, it is necessary for the Government to act. The right hon. Gentleman has attempted to provide a blanket cover. Therefore there will be no doubt at all about individual responsibility, and the rôle of the State.
The right hon. Gentleman has certainly shown by this Bill his usual keen insight into the less popular causes, and he deserves our support.

3.17 p.m.

Sir Lionel Heald: I should like first to say that I appreciate the action of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) in raising this subject, which is one of immense importance, and I agree with him that action is certainly necessary However, it is one thing to approve of a principle and quite another to support a Bill which is designed to carry it into effect, and I am bound to say that I feel that the Bill as it stands is one to which in principle there are very serious objections.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Billericay (Mr. Moonman) has just said that it gives a blanket cover. Well, that is what it does; the width of it is extraordinary; and there are some grave legal difficulties in it. It was said that it creates a new legal offence and right of action in what is called a tort, but it also creates an entirely new form of property, and a very dubious one in some respects.
It does not do so in any kind of legal language that I understand. In Clause 7 we find that the test is
any person who at the time of the alleged misappropriation had a bona fide de jure claim".
I have never seen that expression before in any Statute, nor do I think it could be found in any decided case. It surely will be necessary to define what it means. One would think that in this construction that meant something which was already now recognised as a de jure right, but that immediately lands us in great difficulty. At present the essential basis of any right in this connection is the fact that the information is confidential and the word "confidential" does not occur here. It covers information of the commonest knowledge, and there is no limitation whatever.
The implications of that are very serious. No doubt it is very desirable to extend the law in order to protect our industry and exports, but we have also to consider such things as the freedom of the individual. We have to remember, for example, that for 200 years it has


been regarded as a restraint of trade that any employee should be bound by a restrictive covenant preventing him from making use of all his ordinary skills, experience and ability and carrying them forward to somewhere else. Is it intended to destroy that altogether? Apparently it is. If an employer says that he does not want an employee, who is to be employed by somebody else, to be able to carry with him any of the ordinary matters which he has learned during the time he has been doing that work, he will be able to do so. I do not suggest for a moment that that is what is intended, but that is what the Bill does.
Let us consider the people who are to be able to claim. They will be not only the owner of the imaginary property, much of which at present is not the subject of property, but the possessor. Anyone who at any moment possesses industrial information will be able to prevent or forbid anyone he chooses from using the information, or from doing any of the other many things mentioned by the Bill. I do not believe for a moment that that is what is intended, but the legislation would have that effect.
For example, let us suppose that a newspaper were interested in some great company's extension of its business so as to include a field which it had not yet entered and in which there were secrets but about which much of the body of know-how was common knowledge. If that newspaper had an account from a man who in his daily work worked for that company and he included anything whatever that was secret or confidential, the newspaper could be prevented from publishing it. One wonders whether that has been appreciated.
Clause 1 (a) also says that anyone who reads the information shall be guilty. It may be intended that "reads" should mean reads with photographic or electronic devices, for the word would not be appropriate on its own. There is this rather disjunctive sentence which is intended to cover reading, copying, receiving, or recording with photographic or electronic devices. It is a matter of English.
However, let us see the length to which that goes. If someone copied a formula in a drawing office on a nice day in the summer when the windows were

open and a breeze blew the copy out of the window, someone who picked it up and read it would be committing an offence. This would be extraordinary.
The explanation may be that the proposal emanates from the Council of Europe and some Continental lawyers. On the Continent the law operates differently from ours. An area of law is enacted to a large extent and within that area men are not prevented from doing this, that or the other. Under our law, what people must not do has to be prescribed unambiguously. What is covered by legislation must be enforceable by law. That is not the case under the Bill.
I could say much more in that vein. It is not unfair to say that the Bill sets out the problem and suggests a method of approach. I believe that the draftsmen would agree that it is not seriously thought that it could pass into law as it stands. If that be accepted, I would go all the way in supporting my right hon. Friend as regards the need to deal with these serious points about technical information. I think that my right hon. Friend will agree that, as the Bill stands, it is not anywhere near restricted to that problem. We must, in our desire to introduce modern legislation, ensure that we do not, in the process, destroy ancient individual rights.

Mr. Moonman: I am in somewhat of a quandary. It may be possible for you to help me. You began by saying that you accepted the principle. You then gave us some comment on details—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must address the right hon. and learned Gentleman through the Chair.

Mr. Moonman: I wonder if it might be possible to have some clarification as to whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman is saying, putting on one side his criticisms of detail, that he is in favour of trying to deal with the problem in the way which has been outlined. This is the guts of the whole problem.

Sir L. Heald: On the general lines, yes. If it is found that what is involved is the creation of a new offence, and for that purpose the creation of a new right, I should think that even the hon. Gentleman would agree that that produces a serious obstacle to accepting the Bill. It does not mean that the matter should


not be inquired into. I agree with my friend, Mr. Alan Campbell, who has studied this matter with great care, that great effort should be made by means of a Committee or a Royal Commission to tackle this subject and pass legislation. That will not be done by the Bill. I doubt whether the structure of the Bill is capable of being adapted in Committee to do it.

3.28 p.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Edmund Dell): Without attempting to close the debate—indeed, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle), suggested that it would be helpful if the debate were continued on a future occasion—I think that it would be useful if the House were made aware of the Government's attitude to the Bill. I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for intervening in view of the time, so early in the debate.
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on introducing to us a most interesting subject and one which may well be of increasing importance. He said that the Board of Trade was, or had the reputation of being, a laissez-faire Department. The Board of Trade is now under new management. Today, it is one of the leading interventionist Departments of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman should not concentrate, in his understanding of Board of Trade activities, on what may have been true in the past.
The first question to be considered is whether industrial espionage is currently a serious problem. The right hon. Gentleman said that perhaps it was not yet, but it could in due course become so and perhaps become so very rapidly.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the speed of development in technological matters. I accept everything that he said on that subject. There is always a rapid speed of development in technological matters. This has happened for a long time. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that Macaulay referred to the fact that any schoolboy at his time knew what it had taken the genius of Newton to discover. Certainly there is rapid development.
I accept that, even though it may not yet be an important problem, it could so Indeed, my hon. Friend the

Member for Billericay (Mr. Moonman) gave evidence to suggest that it may be a currently important problem.
There is a conflict of evidence on the subject. We see newspaper articles describing alleged cases of industrial espionage involving enormous sums of money. Such an article appeared only the other day. We have the fact that the Council of Europe believes that it is important to consider the whole question of industrial espionage, though it has not yet made any recommendations.
On the one hand, we have evidence that this is a currently serious problem—and I understand that the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Dudley Smith) has certain things to say on that point—but, on the other hand, we have certain contrary facts. First, there have been no representations to us by the C.B.I. that this is a currently important problem, though I accept that this may not necessarily be the best channel of information.
Secondly, there is little evidence and few complaints presented to the Board of Trade that this is a serious problem.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Is it not a fact that a number of companies have asked the Board of Trade what the incidence is, and the Board of Trade has said that it has had very few complaints of industrial espionage? Are not the number of inquiries considerable, but reports reaching the Board of Trade are minimal?

Mr. Dell: We have had complaints. Indeed, we have had representations from Members of this House. We have tried to follow up these complaints. We have tried to secure evidence supporting them, and have failed to obtain any. It may be that this is an area—there are other areas like it—in which it is difficult to secure evidence. It may be that firms are not prepared to provide evidence concerning their losses, because they do not want to reveal inadequate industrial security. We have little evidence that there has been significant damage to companies in this country, as yet, resulting from industrial espionage.
Another interesting, but far from decisive, fact bearing on whether this is a currently important problem is that, so far as we have been able to discover,


few countries have yet thought it important to legislate in this area. That does not mean that we should not take a lead if this is an important area in which to legislate. I accept the point that, although it is not a serious situation now, it could become serious.
I suppose that industrial espionage, to some extent, has always existed. Today, information is, in one sense, easier to come by, but, in another sense, it can often be more difficult to use when obtained. It is easier to come by for the reasons the right hon. Gentleman gave—the invention of various electronic devices, laser beams, which enable a person to detect what is being said inside a telephone booth. It may be useful if a man is waiting outside and wants to know whether his exclusion is justifiable. Undoubtedly the increasing use of these instruments could lead to an incursion into privacy. On the other hand, we have to bear in mind that the kind of information which may be discovered as a result of the use of these methods can be more difficult to use, because many processes are capital intensive and need considerable resources devoted to putting them into production.
In addition, production these days does not just depend on processes and cannot just be duplicated by reading documents. A lot depends on the know-how of men on the job, scientists, chemists or engineers, and marketing men, whose know-how may well be quite as important in getting a production process into operation as anything in a document. This may serve to restrain industrial espionage and its value. Nevertheless, it is true that information about one's competitors is always useful, although much of the information that firms collect about their competitors is innocently and correctly collected, and they would be in default in their competitive activities if they did not strive to collect it.
The most useful thing for a company to know is what its competitors intend to do. It is often of extraordinary use to know, not how to do a thing, but simply that it can be done. If one knows that, and one has research resources, one can set about independently establishing how to do it. The fact that someone else has succeeded indicates that one will not be wasting one's time searching for

a route to a particular result. One clear example was the atomic bomb. The most important information about the atomic bomb that was of use to other nations was the fact that it was possible to make such a bomb.
To give an example from my own experience, about 10 years ago I.C.I. discovered that it was possible to make reactive dye-stuffs. Immediately these were marketed, within a matter of two or three years, every major competitor of I.C.I. was marketing reactive dye-stuffs because they had been supplied with the essential information—it could be done. The spread of information, the knowledge that something can be done, can be of vital importance to a company. For these reasons I accept that industrial espionage, although it is not now a serious problem, could become so. I therefore accept that it is right for Parliament to consider legislating to protect industrial information.
I now come more specifically to the Bill itself.
As is inevitable in a Private Member's Bill, there are drafting problems. This is not unusual, and I believe that it is held in some quarters that even Government Bills are not perfect in all respects when they are introduced. I do not want to talk about drafting problems, because they can obviously be corrected in Committee, and would not justify me in opposing the Bill.
What I want to consider are the criteria that legislation should meet, in other words, questions far beyond drafting problems, and how far the Bill meets them, or could be made to meet them. The first criterion is that what we do in this area must not endanger proper privacy or personal liberty—the cure must not be worse than the disease. I immediately acquit the sponsors of the Bill of any intention on this score. I find that easy to do, bearing in mind who they are. On the other hand, the House must bear in mind the very serious remarks of the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald). There are dangers here of making the cure worse than the disease, and we must ensure in any legislation that we introduce that this is not the case.
There are always dangers of over-enthusiasm in matters involving


espionage of which any legislature must take care, although I suspect that these dangers of over-enthusiasm exist far more in an industry's administration of its own security than through anything that we might do here.
The second criterion relates to our approach to the problem. It must be the right approach. Here we are in an uncharted sea. Little consideration has been given to the way in which we should tackle this problem, and we need to have careful thought as to what should be done. We need to distinguish between the guilty and innocent collection of information. We need to distinguish between information which is and which is not secret or confidential.

Mr. Dudley Smith: I appreciate that point, but if I wilfully copy a document which I believe will be of value to a rival, and sell it or give it away, in spite, to a rival company, I am guilty of an offence, and that should be punishable by law.

Mr. Dell: I agree that there are problems and certain matters which it may be right to bring within the criminal law. I am indicating certain criteria which such legislation should meet and certain distinctions which it should make.
The definition of information in Clause 3 is rather obscure. The words "drawings", "results" and "conclusions" would lead to considerable difficulties of interpretation in the courts. The phrases "unregistered or incomplete patent", "trade mark", and so on—and here I am not speaking as a lawyer—have no meaning at the moment. Speaking more generally, the approach of the Bill seems to be based on the 1968 Theft Act. In a sense, that seems logical. It seems logical that it should be a crime to steal information just as it is a crime to steal property. That may be the right approach, but we must accept that there is a considerable difference between information and property, and that that approach might not be the right one. We must consider this point seriously before we legislate.
The Bill's general conception of what should be prevented is probably about right but, without wishing to be dogmatic, I believe that it goes too far in one or two respects. First, subject to the provisions of Clause 8, it seems to create

absolute offences. There may be good reason for doing this, but proposals for creating offences where there is no guilty intention should be accepted only where there is an overwhelming case in favour of doing so, as the right hon. Member for Handsworth agreed.
Secondly, an offence is committed whether or not the information in question is secret or confidential. In terms of the offence of misappropriation created by Clause 1 this may be right, but it is more questionable in relation to the offence created by Clause 2, which deals with receiving, using, handling, and so on. Here there is something to be said for limiting the offence to information which is either secret or confidential.
The next criterion we should have to consider is whether the Bill covers the whole area of the guilty acquisition and use of information. In order to be successful it is necessary that it should do so, because to the extent that it does not it indicates lines which spies would take to get round the Bill's provisions.
The Bill does not deal adequately with improper disclosure by a dishonest or disloyal employee which is probably as serious an offence as disclosure by the more dramatic devices of "bugging" and the use of lasers, or cameras fitted with telescopic lenses. While this is a gap that ought to be closed the task of closing it without going too far looks like being rather difficult. The experience of the courts in civil cases dealing with confidentiality and restrictive clauses in contracts of employment has shown that it is not always easy to draw the line between the use by an employee or an ex-employee of the skill, experience and general knowledge he has acquired in the course of his employment and the disclosure or other improper use of his employer's trade secrets. The need to draw a precise line is obviously greater in penal legislation but the task of drawing it is no easier. That is the point that the right hon. Gentleman was making, with greater experience than I could possibly bring to bear on this subject. I hope that people will not be charged with disloyalty every time they change their jobs. In this country there is too little staff mobility, not too much.
Another criterion is, will the legislation be enforceable? To make it enforceable the Bill has to have a clear meaning


which the courts will be able to interpret, and firms must be prepared to come forward and co-operate with the police. We do not know whether they will do so. I know of the lack of preparedness so far to provide evidence in this matter. We already have Acts of Parliament which are virtually unenforceable because evidence is unobtainable.
Then there is the question of penalties. About the penalties in the Bill I only say that if the extent of the offences is as great as some newspapers have suggested and these offences have been responsible for the passage of information worth many millions of pounds as newspapers have often suggested, I doubt whether the penalties would be adequate, but evidence as to the extent of these offences is lacking. The protection of know-how is likely to be one of the subjects considered by the Banks Committee which was set up in May, 1967, to examine the patents system. It might be as well to have the Banks Committee's findings before proceeding on the general question.
None of the comments I have advanced are reasons for a final categorical rejection of the general approach adopted by the Bill. On the other hand, they constitute reasons for taking time to think. Very considerable redrafting of the Bill would be required and the Government have not sufficiently clarified their mind on the subject to be able to help. For these reasons the Government cannot now support the Bill. We accept that there is a problem—of what dimensions we do not know—possibly an increasing problem. The Government propose to consider it. I hope that the fact that we have had this debate will bring forward people with knowledge. We are prepared to discuss the problem with them and the C.B I. if that should be their wish.

3.47 p.m.

Mr. Dudley Smith: I should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) on the typically lucid way in which he moved the Second Reading of his Bill. In practice very few private Members are able to spotlight a problem which will be growing as months and

years go by and it is relevant that we should be considering this subject today.
I was interested in the comments of the Minister of State, who I thought poured cold water on the enterprise which my right hon. Friend has shown. As I said in an intervention, I believe that a large number of companies from time to time have made representations to the Board of Trade about the incidence of this problem, but the Board of Trade has said that to its own knowledge there have been very few complaints. It may be true that many companies have not reported thefts or duplicity on the part of employees, ex-employees or outsiders because they did not wish to spotlight their own cases. Nevertheless, one hopes that the Board of Trade will be in the vanguard of thinking on this subject because it is an entirely new dimension in the age in which we live and it is a subject which requires legislation.
With the increasing complexity of industry and technological and scientific development there must be provision for the protection of industry when new discoveries are made. I should have thought industrial espionage was at the moment not particularly widespread, but we are on the threshold of it becoming so. There are reports that it is a fairly well-known activity in the United States and also in other parts of Europe. It may be that before long we shall have it in this country. One of the greatest difficulties is that we do not yet know how prevalent the problem is in this country. Perhaps it is rather exaggerated at the moment because of the number of companies which are coming to the fore offering their services to guard against industrial espionage.
I must declare an interest in that I am concerned with a large industrial undertaking in this country, but I should emphasise that industry as a whole is anxious about this problem and feels that measures ought to be taken by the Government to protect the interests of industry, which are also the interests of the country. Many of these espionage activities can benefit other nations if they are carried to an extreme.
If I, as an individual, steal a file of documents, and I am discovered, prosecuted and convicted, I may be fined only a nominal amount because the value of the actual material involved may be only


30s. But in know-how the file may well be worth more than the money stolen by the Great Train Robbers. Surely that situation is wrong. On the other hand, if, instead of stealing the file, I have it copied by photographic, duplication or other means, and then sell it, although I may be dismissed by my employers, apart from any civil action which may be taken I am not committing a criminal offence under the present law. Surely that also is wrong.
We know that the way in which secrets may most easily be conveyed is by the movement of employees from one firm to another, and I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) that we must protect the individual. But the transfer of know-how can vary considerably. It may result, at one extreme, from the movement of an employee from one company to another. That employee may be asked, "How did your previous employers do this?" and he may explain. At the other extreme, we may have the transfer of formulae or of information about secret processes which can materially benefit another company.
The time has come when the Government ought to take far more positive action than has been indicated by the Minister of State. The company for which I work is a leading pharmaceutical manufacturer actively engaged in reseearch and spending millions of pounds a year on research. Its employees are people of repute who would never consider transferring information, but if a renegade employee were introduced one day and who transferred information to another company, surely that would be of considerable embarrassment to the firm for which I work. My company has spent vast sums of money over the years in achieving complete security. If, however, it discovered an employee who was guilty of misappropriation, it would have very few legal remedies against the person committing that act.
Even though we are becoming far more conscious of the problems of espionage in this country, we need a lead from the Government to make sure that, as industry becomes more and more oriented towards technology and science, protection is provided for individual companies,

as well as protection for the employee who is fully loyal to his own company.
I therefore support my right hon. Friend's objectives—perhaps not with the idea of getting the Bill on the Statute Book in its present form, but at least with the aim of bringing the problem far more into consideration than has been the case so far. Even if the Bill fails in this Session, we may look forward to the Government bringing forward their own legislation on the subject, trying to protect industry in this country. Judging from the comments made today, there is a general will on both sides of the House that something should be done about it. Action is badly needed.

3.55 p.m.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Since for two years I have been trying to raise in the House the problem of industrial espionage as an aspect of privacy, I welcome this debate and I congratulate the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) on having initiated it. However, this Bill illustrates the fallacy of trying to tackle the problem of privacy in a piecemeal fashion. Already in this Session three Private Members Bills are down to be debated, each on a different aspect of the same problem.
Although the right hon. Gentleman couched the problem in the language of modern technology, there is nothing new about spying on one's neighbour, whether the neighbour be a big industrial company or the person next door. This is no different a problem from that of the Peeping Tom, about which there was some legislation in the fourteenth century. The trouble is that our present legislation is inadequate to deal with the whole problem of privacy. We need a fundamental review of the nature of privacy and the way in which we regulate intrusions into it.
That is the cause of the defects in the Bill, which were spelled out in detail by the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald). If one has an understanding of what the area of privacy should be, both for an industrial company and for an individual, one must try to decide how far it should be reasonable to intrude into privacy. For example, one should not make the mistake of


drafting a provision in the way in which Clause 1 is drafted—which, as has been accurately pointed out, means that anybody who accidentally reads any industrial information—whatever that may mean—anywhere is guilty of an offence for which he might be convicted and sentenced on indictment to two years' imprisonment. That is obviously not what the right hon. Member for Hands-worth had in mind.
I doubt whether Amendments made in Committee could solve the problem. The right hon. Gentleman has failed to face the question of who should be entitled to extract industrial information and in what circumstances in a modern society that entitlement should apply. An excellent example was given when reference was made to whether a newspaper should be entitled to print information which it had obtained from an employee of a company. Equally accurately, the Minister pointed out that there were reasons why one could say, on considering the whole problem, that an industrial company was right to try to obtain some knowledge of what its competitors were doing since that was desirable in the interests of society generally and the economy in particular; so that perhaps one should protect that sort of intrusion.
Unless one deals with the whole problem as one, one will fall into the sort of pitfall into which the right hon. Member for Handsworth has fallen, and my fear is that as we begin to take each small segment of the question of privacy into account and legislate for it, we will end up with a ragbag of legislation which will fall between two stools.
The problem and its answer seem fairly simple. We should try to bring about a new statutory tort, something akin to the tort of negligence which has such a widespread application in all areas of society; tort which deals with the problem of the snail in a lemonade bottle and all other aspects of our life, from inaccurate advice given by an accountant to his client to an accident on the road, from unreasonable conduct to inflicting injury.
That sort of tort would enable us to deal with this problem as a whole, because I do not think that a criminal penalty will ever be a real inducement

to stop industrial spying. What will deter industry spies and their customers is the knowledge that if the information which they obtain is beneficial to their employer, that will immediately cost the employer a great deal of money in damages in a civil suit, and therefore—

It being Four o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Friday next.

LIVE HARE COURSING (ABOLITION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 24th January.

BRITISH STANDARD TIME ACT (REPEAL) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second reading deferred till Friday, 24th January.

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY (INTERIM PAY SETTLEMENT)

4.1 p.m.

Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ernest G. Perry.]

Mr. Speaker: Mrs. Castle.

Mr. David Kerr: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have, as you know, been selected by ballot for the Adjournment this afternoon. In view of the fact that you have now called a Minister—who, presumably, had not entered her name in the Ballot—I would appreciate your guidance on what has prompted you to intervene in this way against the interests of private Members. I ask for your Ruling on the matter.

Mr. Speaker: I am not without sympathy for the point of order which the hon. Member has raised. I know from long experience how precious the


Adjournment is to an hon. Member who has been balloting for it week after week, and probably gets it after a very long time.
I am faced this afternoon with two conflicting conventions. For many years it has been the practice that the half-hour Adjournment should be reserved for matters raised by private Members. Erskine May, in page 297, states:
… the right to choose the subject of, or initiate, the discussion during this period on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesday and Fridays is determined by means of a … ballot held by the Speaker ….
Provision for the half-hour Adjournment has been made since 1943, and arrangements for a ballot on other days was announced by my predecessor in the House on 23rd March, 1955. That is one convention—the right of hon. Members to win the Adjournment by ballot.
Against that convention I have to set the undoubted convention of the House that if any Privy Councillor rises, and particularly if a Minister rises, he must be called. If one turns to page 259 of Erskine May one finds that statements are made from time to time on a Friday, on a private Members' Friday, which do cut into private Members' time.
All I can do at the moment is to remind the House of its practice. I quote from the words used by Mr. Speaker Clifton Brown, that "the last half hour is given to private Members", but I must leave it to the sense of the House whether or not, on a general consensus, its general practice should on this occasion be set aside.
If a Minister rises, a Minister is entitled to speak. On the last occasion when we were faced with this situation, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), who had the Adjournment, had come to an arrangement with the Minister to give it up. I understand that that has not happened today.

Dr. Kerr: Further to that point of order. I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for the very fair way in which you have set the dilemma before us. I assure you and the House that I am not insensible to the pressures which are prompting the Minister to seek leave to make a statement now.
None the less, you have emphasised that the general practice of the House, until this moment, has been to preserve the rights of back benchers to enjoy their own time in the way set down by the House, and only the House, by its own decision, should alter that.
May I, with respect, draw your attention to the announcement made by your predecessor on 23rd March, 1955, in which he specifically asked hon. Members at that time to make any representations to him if they should disagree. I put it to you that that invitation should hold until such time as private Members have asked you to alter the conventions of the House.
I would further put it to you that on that same occasion, in answer to questions put to him, Mr. Speaker of that day said:
I undertook my consideration of this matter solely in the interests of back benchers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd March, 1955; Vol. 538, c. 2077.]
I know of nothing, Mr. Speaker, which has prompted this House to invite you to alter that consideration and that Ruling.
Therefore, Sir, with great respect, I invite you to reconsider your decision this afternoon and say whether the Minister, who, I think, might have found a more convenient time during the day to make the statement, might relinquish her right, if such right exists other than through my courtesy, and make her statement to the House and the country in some other way.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has argued eloquently one leg of the double convention with which I am faced. I am seized of everything he said, but there is the other convention to which I must have regard.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It appeared to me that the right hon. Lady did not rise. I wonder how the convention operates, whether merely by indicating through an informal channel that she wishes later to seek to catch your eye, the right hon. Lady at once attains priority over her hon. Friend, or whether she should have risen to assert that priority as a Privy Councillor.

Mr. Speaker: That is a minor point. The House has understood during the afternoon that the Minister sought to intervene at the Adjournment time.

Mr. William Hamling: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a fact that this is the second occasion within recent weeks when the Government have slighted the House by this invasion of private Members' time?

Mr. Speaker: On the previous occasion, it was done by mutual agreement between the Minister and the right hon. Gentleman who had the Adjournment. Apparently, on this occasion no such mutual agreement was sought.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. On the previous occasion to which reference has just been made, the Chancellor of the Exchequer came here and made a statement at 4 o'clock, but he did so by agreement with the right hon. Member who had the Adjournment that day, the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). At the opening of his statement, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said—I have not the text with me at the moment—that he was making it by courtesy of the right hon. Gentleman. He was, therefore, implying that, unless the right hon. Gentleman had allowed him to intervene, he would not have been able to do so.
I submit that it will set a dangerous precedent if a Minister is allowed to come here on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Friday, removing the time, the very short time, available to private Members. I appreciate the significance and importance of the statement which the right hon. Lady is about to make, but I appeal to you, Sir, that in these circumstances, if Ministers are to usurp private Members' time, the Government's timetable should be altered so as to provide equivalent time on another occasion.

Mr. Michael English: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you appreciate that the majority of Members here wish to hear my right hon. Friend? Further, would you appreciate that we wish to give my hon. Friend the Member for Wands-

worth, Central (Dr. David Kerr) his opportunity for an Adjournment debate? Finally, would you appreciate that the dilemma with which you are faced is not a real one, and there is no reason why the Minister should not come to the House to make a statement to the country which it wishes to hear, provided that the time so taken does not affect the time which my hon. Friend on this occasion, or other hon. Members at other times, have for the Adjournment debate? I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that such should be the principle and that the whole House would agree with it.

Mr. Speaker: I understand and appreciate all the points which the hon. Gentlemen have made, save that I must point out that the House will adjourn at half-past four. I hope that we may now proceed.

Mr. Will Howie: Futher to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the fact that during recent years at least, when a back-bench Member has been displaced by a Minister, he has been able to make his Adjournment speech very shortly afterwards, by convention? Second, is not the statement which my right hon. Friend wishes to make at least as important to back benchers as to any other?

Mr. Speaker: On the last occasion, I said, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames gave way, that it would be counted to him for righteousness, and it was so counted.

3.10 p.m.

The First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mrs. Barbara Castle): With permission, Mr. Speaker, and to meet the wish of the House, expressed earlier today, I wish to make a statement about the current position on the interim pay settlement in the construction industry.
In my statement to the House on 28th November, I said:
The Board has ruled that the penny cost-of-living payment of March, 1968, is to be reckoned for the purpose of calculating the ceiling in the White Paper. In view of the agreed basis on which the interim agreements were implemented pending the Board's Reports, the Government look to the unions to take steps to ensure that these interim agreements are modified to bring them within the ceiling …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 28th November, 1968; Vol. 774, c. 185–6.]


I would remind the House that the agreed basis was that both the Government and the unions undertook to accept for immediate application in the pay packet the Board's ruling on the inclusion or otherwise of the penny.
Since my statement, the executives of the building unions announced that in requesting the employers to deduct the penny from the enhanced standard rates they would couple this request with a demand for immediate implementation of incentive bonus payments to raise earnings to 20 per cent. above standard rates or, failing this, for lieu rates providing earnings of 30 per cent. above standard rates.
Before this demand was made, I wrote to the unions making it clear that such a proposal was not in accordance with our agreement, and that unless they were prepared to fulfil their undertaking to me at the earliest practicable time, the Government would have no alternative but to impose a standstill. This would necessarily affect the agreement in its entirety. This is because the prices and incomes legislation empowers me to make a direction in respect of the settlement which has been reached, but does not enable me to impose a standstill on part only of the pay increase for which the interim agreement provides.
The unions, however, put their proposals unchanged to the N.J.C. on Tuesday, 10th December, and the employers rejected them. The unions had arranged to meet on Thursday and I again wrote to them, offering to withhold statutory action if by Thursday evening I received the necessary assurances. I also said that I was anxious to dispose of this issue so that we could enter into early discussions on the constructive proposals in the Phelps Brown Report and in the N.B.P.I. Reports.
I greatly regret to say that no such assurances were forthcoming and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works and I have, therefore, today referred the interim agreements in building and civil engineering, concluded on 24th October and 22nd October, respectively, to the National Board for Prices and Incomes with a direction stopping further implementation.
This direction will be effective from Friday next 20th December, which will allow the industries to make a final pay-

ment on Thursday, 19th December, in respect of the current week at the current rates, and to make the necessary arrangements to adjust pay thereafter.
I understand that the Civil Engineering Construction Conciliation Board and the N.J.C. for the building industry will be meeting on Tuesday, 17th December, to consider the position. The Government will review the position in the light of any fresh developments.

Mr. Reginald Maudling: May I ask the right hon. Lady, first, on a point of procedure, whether it is not clear that this is a statement which should have been made at the opening of today's proceedings in the House? If the Government had decided that in the first place, all these inconveniences would not have arisen. Are the right hon. Lady and the Patronage Secretary aware that we expect the Government to give us an opportunity to discuss this statement at an early date?
As to the contents of the statement, is it the right hon. Lady's view that responsibility for this very sorry situation rests with the unions for breaking an undertaking, or with the Government for the dilatory way in which they have handled it and for the rigid nature of their legislation, to which she herself referred in her statement?

Mrs. Castle: I cannot accept that if the statement had been made earlier in the day, inconvenience to backbenchers would have been avoided. This is the problem about making any Ministerial statement on a Friday which is devoted to private Members' time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] I am sorry, but that happens to be the case. If we are dealing with private Members' time, it is curtailed at whatever point of the day the statement is made.
The question of debate is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House, who will be trying to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, before our proceedings end today.
Finally, I would say that the situation is a very simple one. The unions entered into this undertaking. They did it voluntarily and publicly. They did it fully knowing its implications which were made clear and spelt out in a Press statement which they approved, at a Press


conference which they attended with me, and again by me in the House in my statement to the House of 15th November.
In the light of all these clear indications of what was involved, the executives of the unions, the following Sunday, endorsed this undertaking. I think that the House is, therefore, faced with a very simple proposition. Do we or do we not think that undertakings voluntarily entered into should be honoured? I should have thought that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite would have been the first to say that this is a principle we must stand by.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Surely my right hon. Friend is aware that this is not a simple matter, and that the so-called voluntary agreement was under immense pressure from the Government? Is she not aware that this will create disgust, anger and industrial unrest among the building trade workers? Is she also aware that this Order will be fought in the House by every possible Parliamentary means at our disposal? Would she give the House an undertaking that we will have an early debate, to clear up this whole sorry mess, which, basically, has been created by the Department she represents?

Mrs. Castle: Of course, I cannot for a moment accept my hon. Friend's strictures. I had very long, detailed and friendly talks with the unions concerned over this matter, when I discussed with them the implications for the prices and incomes policy of the interim agreement which they had reached. They wished to play it this way. They wished this matter to be referred to the Prices and Incomes Board for a ruling, and in doing so they gave a solemn and public undertaking that they would stand by that ruling and have it immediately reflected in the pay packet. We cannot be clearer than that. I do not believe we can have any kind of secure industrial relations unless specific undertakings of this kind are honoured.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the right hon. Lady aware that in a serious situation of this kind it does not help to make allegations of bad faith against either the unions or the Government who, no doubt, have

done their best to arrive at an agreement on this matter? Would the right hon. Lady press upon her hon. Friends the need for moderation and to see that the utmost is done to get together with the building trade unions before Thursday so that a confrontation can be avoided?

Mrs. Castle: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is not a question of trying to make bad blood anywhere. It is certainly not my desire. That is why, as I made clear in my statement, I said to the unions that I am extremely anxious to get these issues out of the way so that we can go forward to the constructive issues which are vital to the unions and the workers in the industry—the profitability of the industry, and the constructive issues raised in the Phelps-Brown Report and the P.I.B. Reports themselves.
I do not like these arguments over these details. I want, as I always have, to go forward with positive productivity proposals. I believe that the field is open to us to do that. I would repeat to the House what I said in my statement, that we are prepared to review the situation in the light of what comes out of the meetings which are being held next week, and I can only hope that it may well prove unnecessary for the direction to proceed.

Mr. Howie: Is not the real tragedy of this sorry situation the fact that the unions and the employers, in an industry which is notorious for its inefficiency, were unable to reach agreement, based upon productivity, which would have brought it within my right hon. Friend's White Paper and would have made it easier for her to grant the improvements in earnings desired by everyone on both sides of the industry?

Mrs. Castle: I think that the Prices and Incomes Board Report gives us the basis on which we can go forward to strengthen this industry, improve its productivity, and raise the standard of life of its workers.

Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter: In view of the fact that as long ago as 11th November the Leader of the House accepted that to proceed further in this matter without taking the views of the House might amount to an abuse of Parliament, can


the right hon. Lady explain why she did not take the initiative and make her statement in the normal way at 11 o'clock this morning?

Mrs. Castle: I can only tell the right hon. Gentleman that it was not until late last night that I was aware that the unions had turned down my request and that it was necessary to proceed urgently with a direction. I felt that it was only fair to the unions to make it clear to them that this would have to be done unless they could honour their undertaking. As soon as I found that there was a desire by the House, which was communicated to me, for a statement today, I took every step to make myself available, and I seem to have been greatly criticised for my pains.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that this reference to the P.I.B. is concerned only with the nationally negotiated increase and does not mean that there is a wage freeze in the construction industry? Will she, therefore, make it perfectly clear that every building and construe, ion worker is able and allowed freely to negotiate any arrangement for total earnings with his employer?

Mrs. Castle: The reference affects the interim increase, as my hon. Friend says. I am the last to be against genuinely costed productivity agreements. That is what I am after, but all of them will have to be properly costed.

Mr. John Page: May I remind the right hon. Lady that she made a statement at 11 o'clock on Friday, 15th November? The fact that she did not make a statement this morning shows an intolerable disregard of the interests of the House, the construction industry and the position of her right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. Will the right hon. Lady tell us that she is prepared to keep an open mind until time is found—and it must be found before the Christmas Recess—for a debate, so that the feelings of hon. Members and the vote of the House can be taken on this most important issue?

Mrs. Castle: I have already dealt with the question of a debate. The House has many facets and many elements. One can be accused of insulting one

section of the House by making a statement at the beginning of the day and be accused of insulting another section by making a statement at the end of the day. It is extremely difficult. I can only say that when the desire of the House, which I took to be a unanimous desire—I was clearly wrong—was conveyed to me, I took every step to put off other things in order to make it.

Mr. John Mendelson: Does not my right hon. Friend now see the dangerous madness of this legislation, which has landed her and the people who earn their livelihoods in the building industry in this absurd and difficult position? Does she not accept that here were a group of workpeople and employers who had reached agreement and that the Government felt obliged under this dangerous legislation to step in and prevent them from carrying out the agreement? Is not that the basis of this particularly tragic situation?
Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that, even at this late hour, she will call back the parties concerned and try to get a further agreement, perhaps by accepting the increase for this year and looking for arrangements for next year, or in some other way, before she assumes the grave responsibility of imposing this freeze?

Mrs. Castle: I do not share and I never have shared my hon. Friend's views of this legislation. He holds his views sincerely; so, I ask him to believe, do I hold mine. I sincerely believe that it is in the genuine interests of the workpeople that wage settlements should not be inflationary settlements, but should be real settlements which give an increase in real wages and not the nominal increases which are given if these settlements are not based on proper productivity and other criteria.
It is, of course, open to the industry to negotiate new agreements superseding the old and providing standard rates at 1d. an hour less than the enhanced rates. If that is done, my right hon. Friend and I will be willing to withdraw the direction and the reference.

Mr. A. P. Costain: Does the right hon. Lady appreciate that one of the problems was her slowness of action in the first instance?


Does she not realise how she is upsetting the good relations in the building industry? Does she not further appreciate that her decision will lead only to more labour-only sub-contractors which neither side of the industry wants to encourage? How will the freeze affect holiday stamps which have already been printed?

Mrs. Castle: Again, the criticisms rather cancel each other out. One moment I am accused of the dilatoriness of my action. Then by another hon. Member I am accused of the excessive speed of my action. We have to strike a balance, giving full time for consultations and considerations. Then, eventually, decisions have to be taken and action has to ensue.

Mr. Raymond Fletcher: Does not my right hon. Friend, even at this late hour, begin to realise that the built-in rigidities of this policy are an open invitation to be the kind of industrial dispute with which we are now faced, because these rigidities impose rigid postures on all three participating parties in an area which is normally fluid, which has been fluid, and which offers fields for manœuvre to both the contending parties in normal industrial negotiation?
Is it not time that we had another cold, hard look at a policy which does not control anything but simply adds up to persistent, petulant interference in an area which should be open to free negotiation?

Mrs. Castle: Again, I am very interested to hear the criticism that I am applying the policy rigidly. In other quarters the accusation is that I am so flexible in the application of this policy that I am undermining the Government's whole economic strategy. I believe that the truth lies somewhere in between. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that there must be flexibility in the application of this policy. We have shown flexibility not only in this case, but in innumerable others. Of course, it must be administered with understanding of the human issues involved.
On the other hand, there are certain make and break points. Otherwise, we give up the attempt to influence wage

settlements at all. We have, I am afraid, in view of the undertaking given to us very solemnly by the unions, got no choice at this moment but to stand firm, unless they will abide by their undertaking. I repeat that, if they do, I would be the first to be pleased to tell the House that it was not necessary to have a direction.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

4.27 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury and Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Silkin): Mr. Deputy Speaker, perhaps I may be allowed to say, in the absence of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, which I am sure the House will understand, that on the question of a debate, which was asked of my right hon. Friend a moment ago, he would certainly wish to meet the wishes of the House, despite the extreme pressure of business next week. His hope is that time may be found before the House rises for the Christmas Recess and his present intention to make a statement about this as soon as possible.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I welcome the statement which has just been made by the Deputy Leader of the House. Does he agree that this is a case of clumsy mishandling by the Government of the situation and that a full day's debate is necessary to deal with this before Christmas?

Mr. Silkin: I cannot agree with that. I rather thought that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House had done his best to understand the feelings of the House and to meet its wishes.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, when making her statement, said that until Thursday both sides had an opportunity to reconsider the matter. Will my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House explain how we are to have a debate before we know what the findings are on both sides?

Mr. Silkin: I think that we had better wait until my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House returns. I have no doubt that he is capable of understanding the feelings of the House and the situation.

Mr. John Biffen: Is the right hon. Lady aware that this evening she will be the toast of every Trotskyite in the building industry? Is she further aware that her inability to give a straight answer to the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) clearly indicates that there is plenty of scope for earnings to be increased by unofficial action as a result of the Government's decision today?

Mrs. Castle: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is actually inciting unofficial action. I only wish that right hon. and hon. Members opposite would decide to speak with one coherent and consistent voice on the issues of industrial relations.

Mr. Graham Page: As the right hon. Lady knows, here reference to the National Board for Prices and Incomes is effective as from the date it is announced in the London Gazette. The implementation of the agreement will not be unlawful until the moment of that announcement. Will she give an undertaking to the House, in conjunction with the Deputy Leader of the House, that the debate will take place in the House before that announcement is made in the London Gazette?

Mrs. Castle: As I explained in my statement, the payment will be unlawful from Friday next, 20th December.

Mr. John Page: The right hon. Lady must confirm the fact that she has already given a reference and made a direction. That is what she said in her statement. Is this to appear in the London Gazette, which is published this evening?

Mr. McNamara: On a point of order. Are we now to assume that we are reverting to asking questions of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the statement that she made?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): The Deputy Leader of the House intervened to make a statement, but the right hon. Lady was, in fact, answering questions. I called Mr. John Page.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. John Page: May I repeat my question—

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understood the hon. Gentleman to be addressing the House.

Mr. John Page: May we have clarification of the position? I understood the right hon. Lady to state that she and her right hon. Friend had made the reference and given the direction. The making of the reference is merely by being published in the London Gazette. Is it or is it not to be published in the London Gazette tonight?

Mrs. Castle: rose—

The Question having been proposed after Four o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-nine minutes to Five o'clock.